Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IQ tests results for AI

trackingai.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 359 posts

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#291

Post by Jensson »

judofyr wrote: post #223
lumb63 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that this is an instance where “the scientific consensus” is wrong because to suggest contrary to that is wrongthink and enough to have one ostracized not only from science, but also society as a whole. I would love to be wrong, so if someone could explain this to me, I’d be very receptive to an explanation of why this logic is wrong: First, let’s substitute emotionally charged terms for more neutral terms;…

> Suggest contrary to that is wrongthink and enough to have one ostracized not only from science, but also society as a whole. There's many scientists who have published the "contrary". They were not ostracized from science or from society as a whole. These saw next to none negative impact to their position while they were alive. Other scientists have published rebuttals and later some of the originals articles have…

> A very simple example for height[1]: The Japanese grew 10 cm taller from mid-20th century to early 2000s. Originally people thought that the shortness of the Japanese was related to their genetics, but this rapid growth (which also correlates with their improved economy) suggests that the group difference between Japanese and other groups was not related to the genetic component of height variance.

Every group grew taller as they got richer, but Japanese people are still short even today when they are rich. So existence of other factors doesn't rule out the genetic factor.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#292

Post by Jensson »

throwaway284927 wrote: post #200
delichon wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been told that there's no such thing as a circle because there's no such thing as a perfect circle. The claim that race does not exist seems to be in that category.

You seem to be arguing that talking about races within humans may be useful even if the reality only approximates the definition of race (similarly to the idea of a "circle", which even though it does not apply in all it's precision to any real object it may still be a useful concept as an approximation nonetheless). However, I don't think that comparison is particularly insightful, and it may even be a bit misleadin…

Ok, so saying race doesn't exist is like saying chairs doesn't exist, since you can't really say what is a chair, what is a shelf and what is a table, correct? Technically you could say that a chair is a table or a shelf, but people still like to call them chairs, you know the difference when you see it.

Races is like that, scientists can't define it but its still a useful concept like a chair. Scientists can't exactly define what a chair is either, but its still a very useful concept and we can discuss chairs and everyone understand what we mean.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#293

Post by Jensson »

jedberg wrote: post #220

The more interesting link (to me) is this one: https://www.trackingai.org/political-test They run each model through the political leaning quiz. Spoiler alert: They all fall into the Left/Liberal box. Even Grok. Which I guess I already knew but still find interesting.

The political leaning quiz is extremely biased though. Its basically all questions like "should stuff benefits humans or corporations", which doesn't represent what both sides actually thinks.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#294

Post by Jensson »

WanderPanda wrote: post #272
Retric wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO g is purely an abstraction. As long as the rate you learn most things is within a reasonable bound spending more or less time learning/perfecting X impacts the time you spend on Y, resulting in people being generally more or less proficient in a huge range of common cognitive skills. Thus, testing those general skills is normally a proxy for a wide range of things. LD breaks IQ because it results in noticeably un…

For me it all made sense when I heard that IQ/g-factor basically vanishes in the absence of time pressure (heard if from Richard Haier on Lex). For a very narrow range of professions, like ATCs, time is absolutely critical but for most it does not really matter that much. Especially in many STEM fields. I think people in a broad IQ range can build abstractions and acquire intuitions about pretty complex matter. From…

> For me it all made sense when I heard that IQ/g-factor basically vanishes in the absence of time pressure (heard if from Richard Haier on Lex).

That cannot be true as there are valid IQ tests that doesn't have a time component, and people don't all score the same on those. He must have meant something different than you think.

For example Raven's matrices was originally an untimed test, how can that be if there is no G-factor in untimed tests?

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#295

Post by robwwilliams »

EnPissant wrote: post #275
robwwilliams wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Heritability is always measured in the context of Environment X. If you change to Environment Y or Z then the heritability will often change greatly. That's not a very meaningful statement. If you took two twins and severely malnourished one of them it would not be useful to say: "See! IQ is mostly environmental!". You have to assume some kind of baseline environment that nearly everyone will share, and that can be…

Wow, a baseline environment everyone in America shares. Come visit Memphis.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#297

Post by x-complexity »

rzz3 wrote: post #287
gpt5 wrote: post #6

The way human IQ testing developed is that researchers noticed people who excel in one cognitive task tend to do well in others - the “positive manifold.” They then hypothesized a general factor, “g,” to explain this pattern. Early tests (e.g., Binet–Simon; later Stanford–Binet and Wechsler) sampled a wide range of tasks, and researchers used correlations and factor analysis to extract the common component, then norm…

> But it would have been more interesting if an IQ test was developed specifically for AI. Isn’t that basically what the ARC tests are?

> Isn’t that basically what the ARC tests are?

Reductively, yes.

IMO, the ARC tests & the visual pattern IQ tests (e.g. Raven's) have little difference, especially if the Raven tests require the taker to draw out the answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#298

Post by EnPissant »

robwwilliams wrote: post #295
EnPissant wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Heritability is always measured in the context of Environment X. If you change to Environment Y or Z then the heritability will often change greatly. That's not a very meaningful statement. If you took two twins and severely malnourished one of them it would not be useful to say: "See! IQ is mostly environmental!". You have to assume some kind of baseline environment that nearly everyone will share, and that can be…

Wow, a baseline environment everyone in America shares. Come visit Memphis.

Do you think that twin study included any children raised in a Memphis ghetto?

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#300

Post by harry8 »

ludicity wrote: post #261

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.

>Putting aside all of the discussion on whether IQ is a valid construct

>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.

The first caveat is important because if you don't "put it aside" they do in fact mean pretty much the same, i.e. nothing useful or relevant. You can use IQ to measure subnormal intelligence. Average or above scores mean nothing beyond that you can get those scores on an IQ test.

Worth repeating every time it comes up.

Post reply on HN