Live data from Hacker News

IQ tests results for AI

trackingai.org

81–90 of 359 posts

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#81
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The training effect in test-retest is dependent on g as well. It is intelligent to learn from past experiences.

Measuring g is hard and taking shortcuts is tempting. A reasonable repeatable g factor test takes hours, and is too often replaced by a single test. There are ways around the test-retest issues but they are roads less travelled.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#82

Unless they asked the same question multiple times and verified that the AI always gets the right answer, this is a very faulty result. Even looking at the reasoning, in a majority of the cases you cannot prove that the LLM got it right because it actually found the right pattern instead of on a fluke. Here's an example reasoning that got the right answer but that is not specific enough and therefore could apply to l…

That applies to humans too. If each question has 6 options, you can assume that everyone will get 16.6% for free and compensate in the grading criteria.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#83
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 el…

That is correct. The null hypothesis tested is: if you compensate for everything the result is the same for everyone, given that genetics have no effects on g. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, mainly genetic factors underlie the g factor.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#84
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> 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 el…

That is correct. The null hypothesis tested is: if you compensate for everything the result is the same for everyone, given that genetics have no effects on g. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, mainly genetic factors underlie the g factor.

I think everyone is using a different definition of the g factor.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#85
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> 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 el…

That is correct. The null hypothesis tested is: if you compensate for everything the result is the same for everyone, given that genetics have no effects on g. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, mainly genetic factors underlie the g factor.

Just to clarify: the prevailing notion in many context were that genetics does not matter and thus given the necessary social and educational interventions every human would prosper. Sadly, this is not the case. We are limited by our biology AND the extend we and our environment manages us to fulfill our potential.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#86
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is correct. The null hypothesis tested is: if you compensate for everything the result is the same for everyone, given that genetics have no effects on g. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, mainly genetic factors underlie the g factor.

I think everyone is using a different definition of the g factor.

One is certainly not, unless one is not well read. The g-factor is one of the most stable findings in psychology. It is well established and well defined.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#88
post #41

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.

How much of that controversy is manufactured, though? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_... (if even Wikipedia can't drag this through the mud...)

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#89
post #48
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??

Consider genetics as a ceiling. An upper bound.

Take the same child, give it an "ideal" upbringing or an abusive upbringing. You're going to get different IQ scores out of the adult.

I believe you can see this in the Flynn Effect.

Re: IQ tests results for AI

#90
post #73
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
Post reply on HN