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

311–320 of 359 posts

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#311

Post by somenameforme »

api wrote: post #225
somenameforme wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ignoring inflation. Real (inflation adjusted) median earnings are up 12%, in total, over the past 45 years. [1] That also understates the problem because many things (education, healthcare, debt costs, etc) are understated or not even considered in inflation measurements. There's also been a substantial increase in baseline necessities for the average person (internet, computing device, etc). Factor these in a…

So the change from sleeping on hay and riding horses and subsistence farming to this is just a facade? I'm not talking about numeric wealth, which I agree is hand wavey, but actual tangible physical wealth as well as our insane increase in knowledge and capability. I can go watch videos from the surface of Mars and pictures of galaxies from the beginning of time, then go to the doctor and get injected with something…

It's unusual to repeatedly refer to wealth and economics if you mean technological progress. And yeah we have obviously made tremendous technological strides, though I also would not entirely idealize that either. When you say that you live better than a pharaoh in a lot of ways, would you rather be a pharaoh or middle class, let alone lower, now a days?

Technology is definitely the driving factor behind all changes in society, and it's an absolute requirement for our species to ultimately survive in this universe. It's also made it easier than ever for a larger chunk of those those of ability to live lives that would not have been possible for them in the past. But on a social level, it's overall effects are, in a seemingly large chunk of cases, somewhat sordid.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#312

Post by deadfoxygrandpa »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #203
api wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Throughout 99% of human history, the economy was mostly zero sum. If someone was rich it was because they stole it. If a group was wealthier it was because they stole it. By "stole it" I'm including theft of labor through slavery as well as the usual conquests and raiding. There was little to no innovation over time spans as long as thousands of years. Most of human culture and philosophy evolved during these periods…

I think what you are missing is that wealth is actually just "motivation to do work" in quantifiable pieces (we call it "currency", and mark-to-market assets for convenience). If I could bake a muffin that would make you effortlessly glide through, say, a full day of perfectly laying bricks without taking a break, a warehouse of those muffins would mean I'm extremely wealthy. No money, markets, or currency necessary.…

this sounds like a weirdo version of the labor theory of value that youve come up with on your own

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#313

Post by ryandv »

famouswaffles wrote: post #308
Jensson wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exact…

Two sub Sahara African men could be more genetically distinct than one of those men and a random white man even they should be both 'black'. The thing about race is that it has no biological justification. It's still 'real' of course but in the same way money has 'real' value. It's a powerful social construct.

> The thing about race is that it has no biological justification.

> It's a powerful social construct.

This is 100% correct, and yet progressive academics have yet to figure out how to slot this fact into their ideology without creating incorrigible inconsistencies.

For instance - if race is a social construct just like gender, why is transracialism frowned upon, while transgenderism is lauded? Quoting Richard Dawkins, famous debunker of Creationist and religious bullshit [0]:

    Why is a white woman vilified and damned if she identifies as black,
    but lauded if she identifies as a man? That's topsy-turvy, because
    race really is a continuum, whereas sex is one of the few genuine binaries
    of biology.
The most coherent (but unsatisfying) answer I have found in the literature is that society has "intersubjectively" agreed to accept transgenderism and not transracialism, where "intersubjectively" ultimately translates to some level of "because we said so and this is society's new fanfiction head canon:" [1]

    What matters, then, is that intersubjectively we have all agreed that
    ancestry is relevant to the determination of one’s race.
It's worth noting that intersubjectivity is basically a religious concept, as defined in the Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion. [2]

There is no science or biology on the far LGBTQ+ progressive left. Only pseudoscience and apologetics befitting of a Creationist.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cubkdBuvJAQ

[1] https://philpapers.org/archive/TUVIDO.pdf

[2] https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/978-1-4614-6086-2_9182

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#314

Post by togetheragainor »

jdiff wrote: post #253
togetheragainor wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this the consensus because it’s true, or because anybody who suggests otherwise is pilloried and driven out of academia?

I think you'd do well to read this person's thoughts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44933637

That person didn't address the current climate in academia at all. Their examples of "contrarians" are all long-dead professors whose papers were published many decades ago in a different academic climate. That doesn't refute that academia in America has suffered ideological capture since, and questioning the "scientific consensus" on certain politically-charged topics is career suicide.

Also their Japan example seems poor. Japan remains a short a country relative to their prosperity. They're several centimeters shorter than a country with a similar GDP per capita, like Czech Republic. They're about the same average height as Somalians, despite having significantly better food security and a GDP per capita that's over 50 times higher.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#315

Post by weberer »

Jensson wrote: post #293
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.

The questions look like they're taken directly from politicalcompass.org. Its not exactly scientific, but there are 20 years of results floating around to compare with since it was a popular site on the early internet.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#316

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

somenameforme wrote: post #311
api wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the change from sleeping on hay and riding horses and subsistence farming to this is just a facade? I'm not talking about numeric wealth, which I agree is hand wavey, but actual tangible physical wealth as well as our insane increase in knowledge and capability. I can go watch videos from the surface of Mars and pictures of galaxies from the beginning of time, then go to the doctor and get injected with something…

It's unusual to repeatedly refer to wealth and economics if you mean technological progress. And yeah we have obviously made tremendous technological strides, though I also would not entirely idealize that either. When you say that you live better than a pharaoh in a lot of ways, would you rather be a pharaoh or middle class, let alone lower, now a days? Technology is definitely the driving factor behind all changes…

Economics doesn't measure wealth, it measures money, which is a proxy for political power and social status. In economics those are primary, and everything else is labelled an externality.

Wealth in an anthropological sense means the extent to which a culture is increasing its collective intelligence - its ability to understand itself and the world, and to invent and create more interesting and open possibilities for humans to live in and explore.

It's assumed technology is the only way to do that, but that might not be true. Technology is a harsh medicine with spectacular benefits but terrible costs and side effects.

There might be other processes which get to the same ends in more subtle ways.

This culture certainly likes to believe it's the only possible game in town. But cultures tend to do that - until something changes and they discover it's not true.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#317

Post by dragonwriter »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #316
somenameforme wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unusual to repeatedly refer to wealth and economics if you mean technological progress. And yeah we have obviously made tremendous technological strides, though I also would not entirely idealize that either. When you say that you live better than a pharaoh in a lot of ways, would you rather be a pharaoh or middle class, let alone lower, now a days? Technology is definitely the driving factor behind all changes…

Economics doesn't measure wealth, it measures money, which is a proxy for political power and social status. In economics those are primary, and everything else is labelled an externality. Wealth in an anthropological sense means the extent to which a culture is increasing its collective intelligence - its ability to understand itself and the world, and to invent and create more interesting and open possibilities for…

> Economics doesn't measure wealth

Economics measures a lot of things, including wealth. It often uses monetary units as as the units of measure for both stocks like wealth and the numerator of flows like income, but even then its not actually measuring money, its using various techniques to convert things into money-equivalents to have common units.

> which is a proxy for political power and social status.

“Wealth”, “political power”, and “social status” are different ways of saying “the ability to get other people to do things you want them to do”. They are different lenses on the same thing.

> In economics those are primary, and everything else is labelled an externality.

No, in economics “externality” is the label given to a cost or benefit accruing as a result of a transaction to a party other than a direct participant in the rransaction. These are important because they explain one reason why even if rational choice theory did hold (which it doesn’t), markets could produce non-ideal results, because market decisions are based on (and optimize in aggregate, if the assumptions of rational choice theory hold), only those costs and benefits that are internal to the transactions (that is, accruing to direct, voluntary participants in the transaction.)

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#318

Post by hadlock »

jacquesm wrote: post #183
robwwilliams wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The smartest kid in my elementary school in Blankenese, Hamburg, Germany (a filthy-rich neighborhood) was an asthmatic son of the stable master of Alex Springer. By far the smartest kid. But he did NOT go to gymnasium. He was my best friend and I was furious at this social injustice. I was 10 and this was my first exposure to rigid class injustice. It still makes me mad. All of the other dumb rich kids from Blan…

This is pretty common. In the 80s (when I went to high school in Europe) the best way to predict whether or not someone would go to Gymnasium or Athenaeum was to look at how wealthy their parents were. It is still exactly the same today.

I had to research what gymnasium meant, in the US that just means P.E. which is a class where you do generic sports for an hour each day.

Are you saying, in Germany, you can't choose to go academic route in primary/secondary school? The teachers and school decide if you will go into vocational school for mechanics, electrician, etc? That seems to imply class mobility is nearly zero in German education.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#319

Post by holbrad »

famouswaffles wrote: post #310
holbrad wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who say there's no such thing as race are complete charlatans playing semantic word games.

There’s more genetic variation within any so-called racial group than between groups, so race obviously has no genetic justification. That's not semantics. Yes it's real, but for social, not genetic reasons.

>has no genetic justification

That is comically retarded. Like do you have any understanding of the words you are using ?

If there's no genetic justification, how would it be possible to trivially determine someone's race just from their DNA ?

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#320

Post by flir »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #260
flir wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So define one. A race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_maxim

aka "a category that appears self-evident to me".

This was my thinking, also. Good cluster of links.

Post reply on HN