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

61–70 of 359 posts

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#61

Post by brabel »

roenxi wrote: post #29

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.

Even DeepSeek disagrees that “ A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.”!! Genuinely surprised.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#62

Post by gus_massa »

brabel wrote: post #48
cedilla wrote: post #41

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??

Nutrition: just remove a few vitamins and watch the IQ drop like a stone. Even a "balanced" diet with 500kcal/day will be harmful.

Education: in spite of the claims, a good education raise the IQ measurement. The test leak and school add similar tasks.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#63

Post by nialse »

cedilla wrote: post #41
nsoonhui wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another component of this theory concerning g is that it's largely genetic, and immune to "intervention" AKA stability as you mentioned. See the classic "The Bell Curve" for a full exposition. Which makes me wonder what's the point of all the intervention in the form of teaching/parenting styles and whatnot, if g factor is nature and immutable by large? What's the logic of the educators here?

"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.

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.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#65

Post by alphazard »

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…

IQ is a discovery about how intelligence occurs in humans. As you mentioned, a single factor explains most of the performance of a human on an IQ test, and that model is better than theories of multiple orthogonal intelligences. To contrast, 5 orthogonal factors are the best model we have for human personality.

The first question to ask is "do LLMs also have a general factor?". How much of an LLMs performance on an IQ test can be explained by a single positive correlation between all questions? I would expect LLMs to perform much better on memory tasks than anything else, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was holding up their scores. Is there a multi factor model that better explains LLM performance on these tests?

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#66

Post by nialse »

qayxc wrote: post #60
brabel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? If not genetics then what is it? Just random??

The brain has pretty high plasticity. A large host of factors contribute to the final outcome, from mental stimulation to training to overall health, stress (both physical and mental), and nutrition. 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. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/article…

You do have to consider that g is the amount of plasticity though, which is mainly genetic. A better way is to think of it is that genetics provides a potential capacity which may or may not be fulfilled. Training helps individuals to varying degrees.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#67

Post by [deleted] »

brabel wrote: post #48
cedilla wrote: post #41

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??

[deleted]

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#68

Post by nialse »

gus_massa wrote: post #62
brabel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? If not genetics then what is it? Just random??

Nutrition: just remove a few vitamins and watch the IQ drop like a stone. Even a "balanced" diet with 500kcal/day will be harmful. Education: in spite of the claims, a good education raise the IQ measurement. The test leak and school add similar tasks.

Counter point: does not nutrition and education help some people more than others? That’s the g factor which is mainly genetic.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#69

Post by kingkawn »

pbmonster wrote: post #44
nsoonhui wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another component of this theory concerning g is that it's largely genetic, and immune to "intervention" AKA stability as you mentioned. See the classic "The Bell Curve" for a full exposition. Which makes me wonder what's the point of all the intervention in the form of teaching/parenting styles and whatnot, if g factor is nature and immutable by large? What's the logic of the educators here?

Isn't this argument directly countered by the fact that you can study for IQ tests and subsequently do better?

Yes but they need a bullshit gold star to make themselves feel special

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#70

Post by alphazard »

cedilla wrote: post #41
nsoonhui wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another component of this theory concerning g is that it's largely genetic, and immune to "intervention" AKA stability as you mentioned. See the classic "The Bell Curve" for a full exposition. Which makes me wonder what's the point of all the intervention in the form of teaching/parenting styles and whatnot, if g factor is nature and immutable by large? What's the logic of the educators here?

"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.
Post reply on HN