Putting aside all of the discussion on whether IQ is a valid construct, IQ tests are designed for humans and make a lot of assumptions in this direction. Having a computer score well on them is better than the computer scoring poorly, but probably does not mean anything close to what the same result means in a human.
IQ tests results for AI
261–270 of 359 posts
Re: IQ tests results for AI
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do note that The Bell Curve is not considered controversial in general. The part about race and genetics is. Also genes being the sole predictor of IQ is not an accurate description of the book’s premise.
No the whole book is controversial. It's a political argument for dismantling the welfare state disguised as a review of science. They laundered a bunch of work by racial eugenicists along with a bunch of other junk science methodology. https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo?si=bzVMwGU4XjPrk4sr
Calling something "controversial" is a total non-argument. The book's science about IQ is solid.
In actuality, the content of the book was simply a collection of mainstream scientific consensus ideas at that time, without specific controversial add-ons. It's only after the book was published, the book unexpectedly was attacked by proto-woke people.
Re: IQ tests results for AI
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The Bell Curve" is, let's say, highly controversial and not a good introduction into the topic. Its claim that genetics are the main predictor of IQ, which was very weakly supported at the time, has been completely and undeniably refuted by science in the thirty years since it's publication.
This is misleading. Anyone who wants to learn about IQ should Google it. It's the most replicated finding in psychology, and any questions you have about twins or groups with similar or different genes have probably been investigated. There is a lot of noise online in the form of commentary about IQ, so it's important to look at actual data if you are skeptical/curious.
> It's the most replicated finding in psychology
Why would it not be? It's not like intelligence was some sort of unknown intrinsic discovery that psychologist happened to uncover. Intelligence was defined and the tests were created to support the definition.
I've done quite a lot of personal, hobby-research on this subject, and I remain convinced that IQ deserves to be met with a lot of skepticism and controversy. I do believe the tests measure something insofar that all tests measure something, but I am not certain that either intelligence, or at least intelligence alone, is the only thing being measured on those tests.
Not to mention, with over one hundred years of intelligence research, what good has actually come from the field? Historically, there was plenty of racism, eugenics, and the furthering of certain political agendas that have come from intelligence research. Again, whose life has actually been improved from this research? Has IQ positively contributed to the field of education? Has the research helped increase human quality of life and happiness? Of course, leave it to psychology -- its most "robust and replicated finding" is, essentially, useless.
Re: IQ tests results for AI
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no logic. Some people are just born much smarter than others and there is nothing you can do about it if you aren't one of them. The implications of that fact are too much for most people to accept so we pretend that it isn't true.
That is a very fatalist perspective. In HS, I was in a class with 3 kids, who were genuinely smarter than me ( not by a notch, mind; comparatively speaking I was just dumber ). I agree that pretending I was/am not dumb by comparison would not help, but suggesting 'nothing you can do about it' is not entirely accurate either. Frankly, the reason I slowly got less dumb is because of my exposure to them. There is someth…
I guess you could call it fatalist, but is it fatalist to say I was born to be 5'10" and there's not a damn thing in the world I can do to be 6'? Isn't it the same with intelligence? You may feel smarter now, but are you really? What, exactly, makes you fell like you are? Do you think that if you met those same people today they wouldn't still be significantly smarter than you?
Re: IQ tests results for AI
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
So were their claims falsified?
You can't determine someone's IQ based on their race, you need to give them an IQ test to do that, thus the suggestion that we prejudge people based on their race is seen as racist. You might feel that the racism is scientifically justified, but that belief is controversial.
This is a clear example of people confusing explanation ("how things are") with recommendation/support ("ought to be").
Re: IQ tests results for AI
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is quite clear, if you think this is a brag you missed it though. Here it is again, pay attention; if a farmer has their IQ score change 15-20% by harvesting and selling their crop. Then it is very hard see a change in IQ score as a meaningful metric for intelligence, at least for humans that is.
How do your online scores contribute to the point?
Their difference is about the same. If you think this is a brag you must have also missed me saying the scores are meaningless in my view. The questions are great fun though.
A better way to get at intelligence metrics would be to test over a number of years in many ways, again for humans.
Re: IQ tests results for AI
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is misleading. Anyone who wants to learn about IQ should Google it. It's the most replicated finding in psychology, and any questions you have about twins or groups with similar or different genes have probably been investigated. There is a lot of noise online in the form of commentary about IQ, so it's important to look at actual data if you are skeptical/curious.
Not sure what you mean precisely. Yes lots if work in IQ, but that does not mean there is a grand consensus. I am a geneticist who studies cognitive function. The single most common misunderstanding about estimates of heritability is that a high heritability implies full genetic causation without potential malleability. That is total wrong. Heritability is always measured in the context of Environment X. If you chang…
As a geneticist who studies cognitive function, if you get a moment, do you mind reading this blog [1] and stating if you think it's factually correct or not? My genes are too poor, and thus, my IQ is likely too low for me to be certain I can trust my own opinions on the matter.
Re: IQ tests results for AI
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who say there's no such thing as race are complete charlatans playing semantic word games.
So define one. A race.
A group of people that have lived long enough in relative isolation that they became unique, distinguished and separate from other races.
Re: IQ tests results for AI
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've made the mistake of thinking that if IQ were 50% genetic (it isn't - it's way more than that, but that's beside the point), then the remaining proportion is completely (non-shared) environmental. Researchers in this field actually break down the non-genetic component into four major components: 1. Shared environment 2. Non-shared environment 3. Error Shared environment accounts for so little variance that it m…
How can research claim the genetic component of IQ is so high when there are so many environmental variables that have to be accounted for in order for the genetic component to even be able to manifest? For example, if two identical twins are separated at birth. If one is raised in an educationally rich and nurturing environment and the other is raised in a horribly abusive and neglectful environment, then I am not s…
Here is a twin study that places the heritability of IQ to be around 80%: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-hu...
Re: IQ tests results for AI
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't determine someone's IQ based on their race, you need to give them an IQ test to do that, thus the suggestion that we prejudge people based on their race is seen as racist. You might feel that the racism is scientifically justified, but that belief is controversial.
This is a clear example of people confusing explanation ("how things are") with recommendation/support ("ought to be").
The controversy is with respect to "what ought to be". The fact that there are measurable IQ differences between groups is not in dispute.