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

71–80 of 359 posts

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#71

Post by d4rkn0d3z »

Human beings' IQ test results can vary significantly based on how much money is in their pockets. For example, if a farmer takes an IQ test before crops are harvested and sold they score lower than after crops are sold, in the same year.

It seems fairly obvious to me that an LLM is the projection intelligence in the language domain. In other words, if you killed Intelligence and gave it a push in direction of language, the chalk outline you could draw around its dead body on the ground would be an LLM.

Full disclosure: I have taken 2 IQ tests, both online and timed. First was in late 90's after graduated electonics eng. was free, scored 149. After 4 years and obtaining theoretical physics degree, I did another scoring 169. The second test was not free, but I did not pay. I got the second test results because the test site owner personally emailed me my results for free with congrads, because they were the highest ever recorded on the site to date. I did both for fun just see the questions, I think both results are meaningless, the same variability occurs on farmers studied as mentioned above.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#72

Post by hemabe »

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.

And yet, in the US, the first start-ups are offering the possibility of testing embryos for their IQ.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/oct/18/us-startup-c...

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#73

Post by hemabe »

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??

IQ is largely genetic, even if some people claim otherwise. The evidence for this is now overwhelming: even when different ethnic groups grow up in very similar conditions in the same country, the PISA (which correlates r=0.9 with IQ) scores measured vary greatly. For example, among second-generation children in Germany, there are significant differences in PISA scores. Polish children achieve similar or even better scores than German children. Turkish children, on the other hand, remain at the same poor level that their parents (the first generation of immigrants) achieved in the tests.

Twin studies and studies of adopted children also leave no doubt that there is a very strong genetic component that determines IQ. Even Wikipedia assumes that heritability can be as high as 80%.

Links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article174706968/OECD-Studie-...

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#74

Post by naveen99 »

alphazard wrote: post #65
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 I…

Some points on the 4 ? or 5 dimensional personality space correlate with higher iq though.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#75

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

#76

Post by alphazard »

naveen99 wrote: post #74
alphazard wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 I…

Some points on the 4 ? or 5 dimensional personality space correlate with higher iq though.

That may be the case. The personality traits are mostly uncorrelated with one another.

I was trying to give an example of what a successful multi factor model looks like (the Big 5) to then contrast it with a multi factor model that doesn't work well (theories of multiple intelligences).

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#77

Post by gus_massa »

nialse wrote: post #68
gus_massa wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>>> They then hypothesized a general factor, “g,” to explain this pattern.

>> 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?

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

Yes, if you ignore or compensate everithing else, it's mainly genetic.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#78

Post by matthewdgreen »

nsoonhui wrote: post #31
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…

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?

If IQ potential was 50% genetic, then the teaching would potentially raise your actual IQ by affecting the other 50% which is huge. IQs scores in populations and individuals change based on education, nutrition, etc. But even if we hypothesized a pretend world where “g” was magically 100% genetic, this (imaginary) measure is just potential. It is not true that an uneducated, untrained person will be able to perform tasks at the level of an educated, trained person. Also The Bell Curve was written by a political operative to promote ideological views, and is full of foundational errors.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#80

Post by matthewdgreen »

nialse wrote: post #66
qayxc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That seems intuitive to me, but lots of other things in science seemed intuitive because I wanted to believe them. If the measured IQ difference in individuals can be overwhelmed by simple factors like “have I taken the test before”, we don’t really have a useful empirical measurement to say these things and we’re just stating our hopes and dreams.
Post reply on HN