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

341–350 of 359 posts

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#341

Post by machomaster »

flir wrote: post #321
machomaster wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A group of people that have lived long enough in relative isolation that they became unique, distinguished and separate from other races.

"long enough"? " relative isolation"? "unique" how: genetically? culturally? phenotypically?

You are asking questions that are already were answered if you cared to RTFM/LMGTFY.

Shortly:

- Unique how? Optimally genetically, but this has practical problems that the field of paleogenetics is trying to work on. Until then must use: classical morphological features, odontology, dermatoglyphics, biochemical characteristics.

- How long enough? Depends on the type of group. There are different levels of human group classification, both above the traditionally understood "races" and a lot below that.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#342

Post by machomaster »

famouswaffles wrote: post #307
machomaster wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A group of people that have lived long enough in relative isolation that they became unique, distinguished and separate from other races.

The problem is that Human 'races' are not in fact unique, distinguished and separate from other 'races'. Genetically, 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 problem you describe only concerns people who don't know anything about the subject, but still have no shame to have strong opinions about it.

Nobody in race sciences (anthropology, etc) claim that there are only unique races that are separate from each other and don't mix. This is a clear strawman.

The fact that there is mixing between races does not mean that races don't exist. You can make an emulsion out of water and oil, but water and oil still are their own things.

And the science has all kinds of specific categorization for human groups that go way beyond the rough separation into 3-4 main races. All the mixing, separation, migration, isolation, etc have been taken into account.

It's a pity this kind of topic/science is basically a taboo in the Western World and for real info and honest discussion have to go to other systems/countries/languages.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#343

Post by breakyerself »

nialse wrote: post #328
breakyerself wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't rely on work by Eugenicists?

Fortunately, science does not rely on the character of its purveyors but on the quality of the evidence.

The quality of the evidence wasn't any better than the character of the purveyors. You're an apologist for bullshit.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#344

Post by breakyerself »

machomaster wrote: post #262
breakyerself wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah Nazi aligned eugenicist science is totally mainstream.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#345

Post by anywhichway »

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…

One potential issue with that approach is the factors wouldn't stay very constant across generations of AI models.

While a lot of people have used various methods to try to gauge the strength of various AI models, one of my favorites is this time horizon analysis [1] which took coding tasks of various lengths and looked at how long it takes to humans to complete those tasks and compared that to chance that the AI would successfully complete the task. Then they looked at various threshholds to see how long of tasks an AI could generally complete with a certain percent threshold. They found the length of a task that AI is able to complete with a various threshholds is doubling about every 7 months.

The reason I found this to be an interesting approach is both because AI seems to struggling with coding tasks as the problem grows in complexity and also because being able to give it more complex tasks is an important metric both for coding tasks or more generally just asking AIs to act as independent agents. In my experience increasing the complexity of a problem has a much larger performance falloff for AI than in humans where the task would just take longer, so this approach makes a lot of intuitive sense to me.

[1] - https://theaidigest.org/time-horizons

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#346

Post by somenameforme »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #338
somenameforme wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, for the average person the cost of a basic computing device and the rent attached to operate it, is probably eating up the extremely modest gain in income. And in modern times that's not really a luxury so much as a necessity, meaning people today are in effect earning less, significantly less for many, than they did 45 years ago. I intentionally avoided entertainment, which is of course also greatly increasing c…

So everything is better, entertainment is ridiculously cheap, and they are earning more money? You keep saying "effect earning less" but your own linked data shows the opposite.

Are you trying to troll, or do you genuinely not understand what I said? If the latter, try rereading. If you still don't understand, I can try to rephrase.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#347

Post by root_axis »

machomaster wrote: post #340
root_axis wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The controversy is with respect to "what ought to be". The fact that there are measurable IQ differences between groups is not in dispute.

All the controversy I have seen come from people, who think that even talking about possible differences between groups of people is racist, sexist, whathaveyou.

Is it really? I'm sure those people exist, but obviously that's not the case in this thread, so I don't know what to tell you. It's also true that genuine racists and sexists are definitionally motivated by prejudice based on group differences, so a discussion without paying nuance to that reality is begging for controversy.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#348

Post by froh »

robwwilliams wrote: post #339
hadlock wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, yes “gynasium” is the academical track. There are two “lower” tracks. All decided when you are 11 years old! Not sure uf this is still SOP but was in the 60s through ???.

just to add: 11y old is in Berlin where the schooling branch is selected in 6th grade. it's at 9 years of age outside Berlin, during fourth grade.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#349

Post by azernik »

b112 wrote: post #46
azernik wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that the correlation between doing well on these tasks and doing well on other (directly useful) tasks is well established for humans, but not well established for LLMs. If the employees' job is taking IQ tests, then this is a great measure for employers. Otherwise, it doesn't measure anything useful.

Otherwise, it doesn't measure anything useful. Oh it measures a useful metric, absolutely, as aspects of an IQ test validate certain types of cognition. Those types of cognition have been found to map to real-world employment of the same. If an AI is so incapable of performing admirably on an IQ test for those types of cognition, then one thing we're certainly measuring is that it's incapable of handling that 'class'…

"Those types of cognition have been found to map to real-world employment of the same."

...in humans. That correlation has not been established for LLMs.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#350

Post by [deleted] »

machomaster wrote: post #342
famouswaffles wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that Human 'races' are not in fact unique, distinguished and separate from other 'races'. Genetically, 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 problem you describe only concerns people who don't know anything about the subject, but still have no shame to have strong opinions about it. Nobody in race sciences (anthropology, etc) claim that there are only unique races that are separate from each other and don't mix. This is a clear strawman. The fact that there is mixing between races does not mean that races don't exist. You can make an emulsion out of w…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN