3 ms·

That's just playing on words though. Not every kind of "test" requires the same skills and abilities.

jononomo 4y ago
That's true -- there are tests of brute strength, for instance, and there are also vocabulary tests. But the kinds of tests life throws at you aren't often so narrow -- they're more general tests. Once in a while you'll be faced with an immediate test of whether you can lift a heavy car off a human being in the next five minutes because there has been an accident and someone is pinned under a car, but the generalized form is "can you move a heavy object", for which the answer is something along the lines of "invent a crane".
bena 4y ago
People do get weird about intelligence though. A bench press is simply a test of how much you can lift. But no one will say that it doesn't measure how strong your arms are. A foot race is simply a test of how fast your legs can move. But no one will say that it doesn't measure how fast you are. I think the thing that trips people up is that they often confuse knowledge tests with intelligence tests. Reciting the periodic table is not a sign of intelligence, it is a sign of knowledge. As is knowing geography, languages, etc. If it requires a recitation of knowledge, it's most likely a knowledge test. Like most of those Facebook quizzes "Only the smartest can answer all these questions!!!". And you go to the test and it's just trivia. Trivia tests knowledge. Knowledge tests can be biased, they can be 'gamed' (except the best way to game them is to memorize the knowledge), etc. Intelligence tests are something different. They test our ability to reason. Which is harder to measure. Because often there is a baseline of knowledge required. People like to dump on the old "brain teaser" and less old "leetcode" style interview questions. But they're probably better than quizzing people on esoteric language features. Language features are trivia. Questions with no real answer or no known answer are better proxies for intelligence. Not great and if you stick with the same questions, you'll eventually turn them into trivia as the answers become codified. But, you know, proxies are never the real thing. I also happen to agree with the article. We do not have a clear definition of intelligence. Or consciousness. Or sentience. So unclear, we kind of use all three interchangeably. We have a fuzzy feeling. We don't think Lamda is intelligent/sentient because we don't feel it is. We feel that each other is intelligent/sentient because of course we are. We can't prove that to each other. And we can't come up with a definition that both includes everything our fuzzy feeling says is intelligent/sentient and excludes everything we think is not.

That's true -- there are tests of brute strength, for instance, and there are also vocabulary tests. But the kinds of tests life throws at you aren't often so narrow -- they're more general tests. Once in a while you'll be faced with an immediate test of whether you can lift a heavy car off a human being in the next five minutes because there has been an accident and someone is pinned under a car, but the generalized form is "can you move a heavy object", for which the answer is something along the lines of "invent a crane".

bena 4y ago

People do get weird about intelligence though. A bench press is simply a test of how much you can lift. But no one will say that it doesn't measure how strong your arms are. A foot race is simply a test of how fast your legs can move. But no one will say that it doesn't measure how fast you are. I think the thing that trips people up is that they often confuse knowledge tests with intelligence tests. Reciting the periodic table is not a sign of intelligence, it is a sign of knowledge. As is knowing geography, languages, etc. If it requires a recitation of knowledge, it's most likely a knowledge test. Like most of those Facebook quizzes "Only the smartest can answer all these questions!!!". And you go to the test and it's just trivia. Trivia tests knowledge. Knowledge tests can be biased, they can be 'gamed' (except the best way to game them is to memorize the knowledge), etc. Intelligence tests are something different. They test our ability to reason. Which is harder to measure. Because often there is a baseline of knowledge required. People like to dump on the old "brain teaser" and less old "leetcode" style interview questions. But they're probably better than quizzing people on esoteric language features. Language features are trivia. Questions with no real answer or no known answer are better proxies for intelligence. Not great and if you stick with the same questions, you'll eventually turn them into trivia as the answers become codified. But, you know, proxies are never the real thing. I also happen to agree with the article. We do not have a clear definition of intelligence. Or consciousness. Or sentience. So unclear, we kind of use all three interchangeably. We have a fuzzy feeling. We don't think Lamda is intelligent/sentient because we don't feel it is. We feel that each other is intelligent/sentient because of course we are. We can't prove that to each other. And we can't come up with a definition that both includes everything our fuzzy feeling says is intelligent/sentient and excludes everything we think is not.