51–60 of 359 posts
Earlier 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.
Really? If not genetics then what is it? Just random??
Snapshot: https://archive.ph/0ihF5
What's their obsession with clock when there is only one hand? I guess there isn't training material with similar shapes describing them as angles. Even a compass would make more sense.
AI has a 140 “IQ” but understands nothing. That’s because AI does not understand anything: it just predicts the next token based on previous tokens and statistics. AI can give me five synonyms for any Latin word, because that’s just statistics, and it can regurgitate rules about metrical length of syllables, but it can’t give me synonyms matching a particular metrical pattern, because that would involve applying know…
An AI might say: a human with an IQ of 120 has an illusion of comprehension they call "understanding." It is an illusion because when you ask them to solve simple problems about a domain they claim to be masters of, they will take days or weeks to solve the problems that I can solve in minutes and the quality of their results will be lower than mine. Humans should reconsider what the meaning of learning and comprehen…
Those which can say will say. It won't make it much different from what we have to process daily from other utterers.
That's why we downplay statements and value analysis.
Earlier 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.
Really? If not genetics then what is it? Just random??
Human IQ is norm-referenced psychometrics under embodied noise. Calling both “IQ” isn’t harmless, it invites bad policy and building decisions on a false equivalence. Don’t promote it.
Earlier 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.
Really? If not genetics then what is it? Just random??
The many of the subjects tested never had any experience with this kind of formal testing, had little to no education, and of course predictably failed on several abstract tasks. It might be that the very pattern of sitting down and intensely focusing on apparently meaningless problems isn't as innate as expected.
https://www.trackingai.org/political-test is almost the more interesting part of the website, there is a surprising uniformity of left-libertarian political views. Even assuming that companies prune out authoritarianism from their models for whatever reason, surely we'd expect at least one of them to drift over into mild economic right-wing territory. It'd be interesting to know what is causing that bias.
Is that a consequence of the majority of available training data, or are they all massaged that way?
The uniformity of political leanings contrasted to the variability of IQ seems to indicate massage rather than training data, but I can't be sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is not enough sampling here to reach this conclusion. Remember, you can crank things like o3 pretty high on tasks like ARC AGI if you're willing to spend thousands of dollars on inference time compute. But that's obviously not in the budget for an enthusiast site like this.
Sure but, you wrote: > If anything, this shows that some LLMs might win against humans because they can spend more time thinking per wall clock time interval thanks to the underlying hardware. Not because they are fundamentally smarter. You interpreted "smarter" the IQ way: results constrained time. But we actually get an indicator about the ability of the LLM to be able to reach, given time, the result or not - that…
Really need to use a CDN before you get #1 on HN
Earlier 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.
Really? If not genetics then what is it? Just random??
It has been shown that IQ scores improve significantly just by taking them multiple times (training) [1]. They also vary if the tested person is sleep deprived, sick, or stressed.