[ExI] A AI with a higher IQ than 75% of Americans

[William Flynn Wallace]

Our fascination with IQ testing  rafal

No psychologist would like the current situation re IQ tests to continue.
We all know how inadequate they are.  Correlations with real world
variables rarely run over 25% of the variance.  What is amazing is that
they have lasted so long.  The reason why:  intelligence has never been
defined in such a way that everybody jumps on the bandwagon and says Yes,
that's it; that's what real intelligence is.  And the reason for that is
that like the 12 blind men and the elephant, everybody is looking at a
different set of variables with every intellectual task they explore.

Individually given IQ tests are the best we have because they do correlate
with more other variables than any other sort of test.  Not easily replaced.

But as we are talking about the most complex functions of the most complex
thing, all of that is to be expected.  I would love to live to see
correlations in the .70s and .80s.

But I won't.  And likely you won't either.

bill w

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 1:13 PM, William Flynn Wallace <
> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Raven matrix test is just one component of many.
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>> ​Yes, but it's a good one and one of the very few that is language-free
>> and has high validity.
>>
>>
> ### Raven's matrices have been standardized on humans, obviously, and
> humans are a peculiar type of embodied neural network system with a lot of
> hard-wired modules that enable real-world functioning. An IQ test takes a
> lot for granted - ability to walk, hold a pencil, fill out the test as a
> mechanical challenge, find the person you need to hand it to, etc. As a
> result, Raven's matrices are not a very good measure of the intelligence of
> disembodied fragments of neural networks that are now the subject of deep
> learning research projects. Such fragments replicate some small areas of a
> human mind but they do not form an integrated whole capable of functioning
> in the real world, and their ability to perform some elements of an IQ test
> is not predictive of real world performance.
>
> Our fascination with IQ testing stems from the test's ability to predict
> real-world function, including the eternally important who-whom question,
> and not just silly puzzle solving. Deep learning network IQ testing is
> therefore for now less interesting but once the separate deep learning
> modules become integrated into human-like systems with real-world
> performance, their IQ will be acutely interesting in the who-whom context.
>
> This said, it is amazing that tiny deep learning neural networks with mere
> billions of parameters manage to equal the performance of middling-sized
> chunks of brain (e.g. the subcortical and cortical visual processing
> centers).
>
> Rafał
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170130/12b089ef/attachment.html>