3 ms·

I'm not sure about your angle here, but I thought IQ was calibrated to have 100 as the average value? So wouldn't 80 mean that someone is... kinda dumb?

by oblio 3y ago

steve1977 3y ago
I guess the problem is that the term "intelligent" is ambiguous and overloaded. So in one usage someone who is kinda dumb would still be intelligent, just less intelligent than others. In another usage, we use the term to describe someone of above average intelligence (which is technically not really correct and actually not very intelligent).
- oblio 3y ago
  > So in one usage someone who is kinda dumb would still be intelligent, just less intelligent than others. 100 IQ = 50% of the population is smarter than this. 80 IQ = not sure what the percentage is, but >50% of the population is smarter than this. If any of the tables here are to be believed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification#Historical_IQ_classification_tables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification#Historical_I... then 80 IQ could mean 80% of the population is smarter. I'll rephrase my "kinda dumb" to "dumb as rocks".
  - billyjmc 3y ago
    From the main Wiki entry on IQ tests: “The raw score of the norming sample is usually (rank order) transformed to a normal distribution with mean 100 and standard deviation 15.” So, you’re not too far off numerically. 80 IQ is only a -1.33 Z-score. So, 9th percentile. 91% of people score higher than 80 IQ.
throwaway20304 3y ago
Kinda dumb, but still intelligent. The sibling comment explains it well.
- oblio 3y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37776800 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37776800 If by "intelligent" you're comparing with other primates, too, sure :-)
  - throwaway20304 3y ago
    My point is, it's not a comparison at all. Intelligence is a trait, you either have it or not. We also use the same word for "how smart you are", but that measurement doesn't change anything about AI being intelligent or not. It can be dumb, but intelligent.
    - oblio 3y ago
      There's little value in that statement. Intelligence is IMO an inherently comparative measure. It's not "on/off", it's "smarter" (than a pile of rocks, than a slug, than another human). So, yeah, you can be a dumb human but you'd be a smart chimpanzee. But we want to be comparing apples with apples in the context of this topic. When people say "AI", everyone implicitly assumes the comparison with human intelligence. So "AI" needs to be as smart as the average human to be actual AI. Ok, AGI, if you prefer that term. There's a reason AI is moving farther and farther away and we're creating new, finer, terms like ML, shape recognition, etc.
      - throwaway20304 3y ago
        I don't know anybody who implicitly assumes that the I in AI is a comparison, people around me understand it as a term for a set of traits, regardless of the level of performance. That's how the term AGI came to be, to distinguish between "intelligent but not necessarily like a human" (AI) and "generally intelligent [like a human]" (AGI). Do you also think that "intelligent alien life in space" means comparable to humans? What if we find something capable of reasoning, abstract thinking, rationality, adaptibility, etc - but much, much dumber than humans? That's intelligence, comparison to humans doesn't change anything about that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence - how could there be animal intelligence if "intelligence" means comparable to humans? "Crows are intelligent but nowhere near human-level" - this statement wouldn't make any sense if you're right, but it actually does make sense, IMHO. > There's a reason AI is moving farther and farther away and we're creating new, finer, terms like ML, shape recognition, etc. That thing with AI is called moving goalposts. And the finer terms - yeah of course we need to be able to be specific about our software, doesn't mean that's not AI. We talked about shape recognition in neuropsychology for much longer than in AI, same for many more terms that will certainly be reused soon.

I'm not sure about your angle here, but I thought IQ was calibrated to have 100 as the average value? So wouldn't 80 mean that someone is... kinda dumb?

by oblio 3y ago

I'm not sure about your angle here, but I thought IQ was calibrated to have 100 as the average value? So wouldn't 80 mean that someone is... kinda dumb?

steve1977 3y ago

I guess the problem is that the term "intelligent" is ambiguous and overloaded. So in one usage someone who is kinda dumb would still be intelligent, just less intelligent than others. In another usage, we use the term to describe someone of above average intelligence (which is technically not really correct and actually not very intelligent).

oblio 3y ago
> So in one usage someone who is kinda dumb would still be intelligent, just less intelligent than others. 100 IQ = 50% of the population is smarter than this. 80 IQ = not sure what the percentage is, but >50% of the population is smarter than this. If any of the tables here are to be believed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification#Historical_IQ_classification_tables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification#Historical_I... then 80 IQ could mean 80% of the population is smarter. I'll rephrase my "kinda dumb" to "dumb as rocks".
- billyjmc 3y ago
  From the main Wiki entry on IQ tests: “The raw score of the norming sample is usually (rank order) transformed to a normal distribution with mean 100 and standard deviation 15.” So, you’re not too far off numerically. 80 IQ is only a -1.33 Z-score. So, 9th percentile. 91% of people score higher than 80 IQ.

throwaway20304 3y ago

Kinda dumb, but still intelligent. The sibling comment explains it well.

oblio 3y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37776800 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37776800 If by "intelligent" you're comparing with other primates, too, sure :-)
- throwaway20304 3y ago
  My point is, it's not a comparison at all. Intelligence is a trait, you either have it or not. We also use the same word for "how smart you are", but that measurement doesn't change anything about AI being intelligent or not. It can be dumb, but intelligent.
  - oblio 3y ago
    There's little value in that statement. Intelligence is IMO an inherently comparative measure. It's not "on/off", it's "smarter" (than a pile of rocks, than a slug, than another human). So, yeah, you can be a dumb human but you'd be a smart chimpanzee. But we want to be comparing apples with apples in the context of this topic. When people say "AI", everyone implicitly assumes the comparison with human intelligence. So "AI" needs to be as smart as the average human to be actual AI. Ok, AGI, if you prefer that term. There's a reason AI is moving farther and farther away and we're creating new, finer, terms like ML, shape recognition, etc.
    - throwaway20304 3y ago
      I don't know anybody who implicitly assumes that the I in AI is a comparison, people around me understand it as a term for a set of traits, regardless of the level of performance. That's how the term AGI came to be, to distinguish between "intelligent but not necessarily like a human" (AI) and "generally intelligent [like a human]" (AGI). Do you also think that "intelligent alien life in space" means comparable to humans? What if we find something capable of reasoning, abstract thinking, rationality, adaptibility, etc - but much, much dumber than humans? That's intelligence, comparison to humans doesn't change anything about that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence - how could there be animal intelligence if "intelligence" means comparable to humans? "Crows are intelligent but nowhere near human-level" - this statement wouldn't make any sense if you're right, but it actually does make sense, IMHO. > There's a reason AI is moving farther and farther away and we're creating new, finer, terms like ML, shape recognition, etc. That thing with AI is called moving goalposts. And the finer terms - yeah of course we need to be able to be specific about our software, doesn't mean that's not AI. We talked about shape recognition in neuropsychology for much longer than in AI, same for many more terms that will certainly be reused soon.