21 ms·

> By rigorous I mean conducted over at least several hours by a panel of expert evaluators drawn from a wide range of academic disciplines such as computer scie

> By rigorous I mean conducted over at least several hours by a panel of expert evaluators drawn from a wide range of academic disciplines such as computer science, philosophy, psychology, law, history, physics, mathematics, biology, medicine, sociology, and communications. Passing such a test is not a property expected of the average human yet the average human is considered a general intelligence, therefore this is not a property of a general intelligence.

nradov 4y ago
Are you even familiar with the Turing test? Passing doesn't require the subject to demonstrate any particular level of knowledge or expertise. The subject only has to convince the evaluators that it is roughly as intelligent as an average human. Average humans are expected to pass such a Turing test.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  Why should a panel exist in the first place if you are not testing knowledge? Intelligence is independent of one's knowledge. Plenty of intelligent but uneducated people, and plenty of educated people - or even people with perfect recall - that are not particularly intelligent. If you are testing intelligence you should be able to distill it to particular tests independent of domain expertise. Any intelligent agent should be capable of in-context learning. So how would you go about doing that? If you do find such a test, do you expect that only the average human and above will pass? Does that not imply that the remaining 4Bn people are not generally intelligent?
  - nradov 4y ago
    The (notional) panel exists to evaluate intelligence, not test knowledge or educational achievement. While some basic level of general knowledge would be necessary to even start a test the main focus would be on ability to learn and reason, including metacognition.
misnome 4y ago
What if that average human has unlimited time to access and cross reference the entire written internet?
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  Humans have mental bounds as well. Having information is not sufficient to synthesize new information that follows logically from the premise, nor is it sufficient to help you understand everything. Even with hundreds of years time there are mental leaps that most of us can't make.
logifail 4y ago
> Passing such a test is not a property expected of the average human [..] I'm thinking of the rabbit hole that is the hurdle to get citizenship in a particular country. "Outsiders" have to apply, pay, take and pass the test. "Insiders" don't have to take the test, they pass by default. Even if they don't know the answers to the test.

nradov 4y ago

Are you even familiar with the Turing test? Passing doesn't require the subject to demonstrate any particular level of knowledge or expertise. The subject only has to convince the evaluators that it is roughly as intelligent as an average human. Average humans are expected to pass such a Turing test.

PartiallyTyped 4y ago
Why should a panel exist in the first place if you are not testing knowledge? Intelligence is independent of one's knowledge. Plenty of intelligent but uneducated people, and plenty of educated people - or even people with perfect recall - that are not particularly intelligent. If you are testing intelligence you should be able to distill it to particular tests independent of domain expertise. Any intelligent agent should be capable of in-context learning. So how would you go about doing that? If you do find such a test, do you expect that only the average human and above will pass? Does that not imply that the remaining 4Bn people are not generally intelligent?
- nradov 4y ago
  The (notional) panel exists to evaluate intelligence, not test knowledge or educational achievement. While some basic level of general knowledge would be necessary to even start a test the main focus would be on ability to learn and reason, including metacognition.

misnome 4y ago

What if that average human has unlimited time to access and cross reference the entire written internet?

PartiallyTyped 4y ago
Humans have mental bounds as well. Having information is not sufficient to synthesize new information that follows logically from the premise, nor is it sufficient to help you understand everything. Even with hundreds of years time there are mental leaps that most of us can't make.

logifail 4y ago

> Passing such a test is not a property expected of the average human [..] I'm thinking of the rabbit hole that is the hurdle to get citizenship in a particular country. "Outsiders" have to apply, pay, take and pass the test. "Insiders" don't have to take the test, they pass by default. Even if they don't know the answers to the test.