9 ms·

The "world's smartest man" very recently predicted on X that Bitcoin would hit $220k by the end of the year. [1] Here's the thing: IQ probably doesn't mean muc

• __s 11mo ago
  tbf you started with what intelligence is in rejecting their claim of being the smartest: ability to predict the future
  • Levitz 11mo ago
    This isn't even that. If I'm a person others may take as a reference and I hold Bitcoin, it is in my interest to publicly state that Bitcoin is going to increase in value, because that in itself makes it increase in value and it's good for me.
    • 0134340 11mo ago
      But doing what is in one's best interest isn't necessarily the more intelligent decision. In a rat society, the more "intelligent" rats can possibly be better at acquiring resources to survive if selective pressure is put upon those with such talents but can just as well be early signifiers of 'behavioral sinks'[0]. Not to mention, certain illnesses, mental and otherwise can change motive regardless of IQ. Actions don't necessarily dictate intelligence. The goal of life has to be defined to make such arguments. For example, using a maze as an analog you could argue the more intelligent person can arrive to the end faster and more elegantly but with life, it has no such defined and agreed on ends. If we're arguing that selfishness is a sign of intelligence then that view is quite myopic. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
  • 827a 11mo ago
    True: A shadow take that I have been noodling on is that "ability to correctly predict the future" is actually the only true characteristic of intelligence. All other things we might label as intellect are either expressions of that, or something different that is more accurately categorized under a different label.
• stavros 11mo ago
  > As World's Highest IQ Record Holder, I expect #BITCOIN is going to $220,000 in the next 45 days. > I will use 100% of my Bitcoin profits to build churches for Jesus Christ in every nation. > “For with God nothing shall be impossible.” (Luke 1:37) Something tells me maybe he doesn't actually have an IQ of 276.
  • HappySweeney 11mo ago
    Don't legitimate IQ tests top out at 160 for adults?
    • bena 11mo ago
      Usually. There's diminishing returns the higher you go. The difference between 150 and 175 is much smaller than 125 and 150. When you go from 30 seconds to 15 seconds to solve a problem, that's noticeable. But when you go from half a second to a quarter of a second, the difference doesn't really matter. So a lot of IQ tests have some sort of ceiling where the only thing they can tell you is "Yeah, it's more than this".
    • csa 11mo ago
      > Don't legitimate IQ tests top out at 160 for adults? “Top out” can be interpreted many ways. It depends on how they are used. Modern tests are fairly accurate up to 2sd (70-130). The tests start wavering in accuracy between 2sd and 3sd (55-70 and 130-145). Over 3sd, and the only thing one can confidently say is that the examinee is most likely lower or higher than 3sd (55 and 145). The tests just don’t have enough data points to discriminate finely beyond those thresholds. Let me further say that, on the high end, there are very few jobs for which I would make any selection decision based on how high an IQ score (or proxy thereof) is over 130. There are other variables, many of which are easier to measure, that are better predictors of success. All of this doesn’t even take into consideration that there is relatively more type II error/bias in IQ results — that is, there are plenty of people who score less than their theoretical maximum (e.g., due to poor sleep the previous night), while there are relatively fewer people who score much higher than their theoretical maximum.
    • Lerc 11mo ago
• herval 11mo ago
  > IQ probably doesn't mean much of anything. But it is one of only a handful of ways we have to benchmark intelligence. IQ means a lot of things (higher IQ people are measurably better at making associations and generating original ideas, are more perceptive, learn faster, have better spatial awareness). It doesn't give them the power to predict the future.
  • Ekaros 11mo ago
    It somewhat indicates better pattern recognition so I might give them advantage on predicting things in general. Not that it will make them prophets or oracles. But Prediction from higher IQ person is more likely to be correct. Not that world cannot be illogical and go against those predictions.
    • herval 11mo ago
      Pattern matching is completely irrelevant when dealing with something that doesn’t follow patterns, such as stock prices
  • codingdave 11mo ago
    It is less meaningful than that. It identifies who does well at tests for those things. That is not the same thing as being "better" at such things, it often just means "faster". IQ tests are also notorious for cultural bias. In particular with the word associations, they often just test for "I'm a white American kid who grew up in private schools." And I say this as one of the white amercian kids who did great on those tests. My scores are high, but they are not meaningful.
    • arethuza 11mo ago
      When I was a young kid my eldest sister (who was 17 years older than me) was an educational psychologist and used to give me loads of intelligence tests - so I got pretty good at doing those kinds of tests. I actually think they are pretty silly, mostly because I generally come out very well in them...
  • 11mo ago
• voidhorse 11mo ago
  Exactly. We don't have a good definition of intelligence and I don't think we ever will. Like all social concepts, it is highly dependent on the needs, goals, and values of the human societies that define it, and so it is impossible to come up with a universal definition. If your needs don't align with the needs an AI has been trained to meet, you are not going to find it very intelligent of helpful for meeting those needs.
  • programjames 11mo ago
    You're quite literally babbling. If a word has no good definition, it ceases to be a word. All you really mean is you use the word "intelligence" very loosely, without really knowing what you mean when you use it. You just use it to point at a concept that's vague in your head. That does not mean you could not make that concept more precise, if you felt inclined to be more introspective. It also does not mean that the precise idea I think of when I use the word "intelligence" is the same as your idea. But they'll often be close enough or even equivalent mathematically, as long as we both have precise definitions in mind.
    • voidhorse 11mo ago
      > But they'll often be close enough or even equivalent mathematically Who is babbling? The number of concepts in human language that have no mathematical formalization far outnumber the ones that do, lol. Yes, we can, obviously, come up with shared, mathematically precise definitions for certain concepts. Keep in mind that: A. These formal or scientific definitions are not the full exhaustion of the concept. Linguistic usage is varied and wide. Anyone who has bothered to open an introductory linguistics textbook understands this. B. The scientific and mathematical definitions still change over time and can also change across cultures and contexts. I can assure you that someone who has scored very high on an IQ test would not be considered "intelligent" in a group of film snobs if they were not aware of the history of film, up to date on the latest greats, etc. etc. These people would probably use the word intelligent to describe what they mean (knowledge of film) and not the precise technical definition we've come up with, if any, whether you like it or not. My point is not that it is impossible to come up with definitions, my point is that for socially fluid concepts like intelligence, which are highly dependent on the needs and circumstances of the people employing the word, we will likely never pin it down. There is an asterisk on every use of the word. This is the case with basically every word to more or lesser degree, that's why language and ideas evolve in the first place. My whole point is that people that don't realize this and put faith in IQ as though it is some absolute, or final, indicator of intelligence are dumb and probably just egotists who are uncomfortable with uncertainty and want reassurance that they are smart so that they can tell other people they are "babbling" and feel good about themselves and their intellectual superiority complex (read: self justified pride in being an asshole). My claim is that this high variability and contextual sensitivity is a core part of this word and the way we use it. That's what I mean when I say I don't think we'll ever have a good definition. EDIT: Or, to make it a little easier to understand. We will never have a universal definition of "moral good" because it is dependent on value claims, people will argue morality forever. My position is that "intelligence" is equally dependent on value claims which I think anyone who has spent more than five minutes with people not like themselves or trained in different forms of knowledge intuitively understands this.
• raincole 11mo ago
  > his self-reported IQ of 276 In other words, this news is a completely irrelevant piece of information.
  • dragonwriter 11mo ago
    It's relevant, just not in terms of assessing good actual IQ.
• r_lee 11mo ago
  This guy is a fraud, he isn't measured by any legit institute, only by some random one which stated he is intelligent and he claims he was measured at 276 IQ. He's low-key just trolling at this point, aaying he wants asylum in the US and making videos about how jesus/God is real with some scientific methods etc. Just go check out his YouTube you'll see what I'm talking about.
• deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
• programjames 11mo ago
  > What I deeply believe is: We're never going to invent superintelligence, not because its impossible for computers to achieve, but because we don't even know what intelligence is. Speak for yourself, not all of humanity. There are plenty of rigorous, mostly equivalent definitions for intelligence: The ability to find short programs that explain phenomena (compression). The capability to figure out how to do things (RL). Maximizing discounted future entropy (freedom). I hate how stupid people propagate this lie that we don't know what intelligence is, just because they lack it. It's quite convenient, because how can they be shown to lack intelligence when the word isn't even defined!
  • axxto 11mo ago
    How do you measure the capacity for improvisational comedy? How do you measure a talent for telling convincing lies? How do you measure someone's capacity for innovating in a narrative medium? How do you measure someone's ability for psychological insight and a theory of self? How do you measure someone's capacity for understanding irony or picking up subtle social cues? Or for formulating effective metaphors and analogies, or boiling down concepts eloquently? How about for mediating complex, multifaceted interpersonal conflicts effectively? How do you measure someone's capacity for empathy, which necessarily involves incredibly complex simulations and mental models of other people's minds? Do you think excelling in any of these doesn't require intelligence? You sound like you consider yourself quite intelligent, so are you excellent at all of them? No? How come? Can you tell me which part of an IQ test or your "rigorous, moslty equivalent definitions for intelligence" capture any of them? > I hate how stupid people propagate this lie that we don't know what intelligence is, just because they lack it. It's quite convenient, because how can they be shown to lack intelligence when the word isn't even defined! How's this: "I hate how stupid people propagate this lie that we know what intelligence is, just because they do well within the narrow definition that they made up. It's quite convenient, because how can they be shown to lack intelligence when their definition of it fits their strengths and excludes their weaknesses!"
    • programjames 11mo ago
      > How do you measure the capacity for improvisational comedy? What makes something funny? Usually, it's by subverting someone's predictions. You have to be good at predicting other's predictions to do this well. > How do you measure a talent for telling convincing lies? You have to explain a phenomenon better than the truth to convince someone of your lie. > How do you measure someone's capacity for innovating in a narrative medium? As in, world-building? That is more of a memory problem than an intelligence problem, though you do need to be good at compressing the whole world into what is relevant to the story. People who are worse at that will have to take more notes and refer back to them more often. > How do you measure someone's ability for psychological insight and a theory of self? They are better at explaining a phenomenon (their self). > How do you measure someone's capacity for understanding complex, multi-faceted irony or picking up subtle social cues? Refer to the above. Also, using the adjectives 'complex, multi-faceted' is lazy here. Be more introspective and write what you really want to say. > Or for formulating effective metaphors and analogies, or boiling down concepts eloquently? Compression = finding short programs that recover the data. > How about for mediating complex, multifaceted interpersonal conflicts effectively? Quite often not an intelligence problem. > How do you measure someone's capacity for empathy, which necessarily involves incredibly complex simulations and mental models of other people's minds? "incredibly complex simulations and mental models of other people's minds," however will you do this? Oh, I know! Your brain will have to come up with a small circuit that compresses other people's brain pretty well, as it doesn't have enough capacity to just run the other brain. > Do you think excelling in any of these doesn't require intelligence? You sound like you consider yourself quite intelligent, so are you excellent at all of them? No? How come? I am actually pretty good at pretty much all of these compared to the average person.
• Arch-TK 11mo ago
  This is a weird argument. First off, we don't have a good way to actually measure an individual's intelligence. IQ is actually meant to correlate with g which is a hidden factor we're trying to measure. IQ tests are good insofar as you look at the results of them from the perspective of a population. In these cases individual variation in how well it correlates smooths out. We design IQ tests and normalise IQ scores such that across time and over the course of many studies these tests appear to correlate with this hidden g factor. Moreover, anything below 70 and above 130 is difficult to measure accurately, IQ is benchmarked such that it has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Below 70 and above 130 is outside of two standard deviations. So, in summary, IQ is not a direct measure of intelligence. What you're doing here is pointing at some random guy who allegedly scored high on an IQ test and saying: "Look at how dumb that guy is. We must be really bad at testing." But to say we don't know what intelligence is, is silly, since we are the ones defining that word. At least in this sense. And the definition we have come up with is grounded in pragmatism. The point of the whole field of research is to come up with and keep clarifying a useful definition. Worth also noting that you can study for an IQ test which will produce an even less correlated score. The whole design and point of IQ tests is done with the idea of testing your ability to come up with solutions to puzzles on the spot.
  • 827a 11mo ago
    My point is to state that one of two things must be true: Either IQ does not really measure Intelligence, or Intelligence (being the thing IQ measures or correlates to) isn't much of a desirable quality for agentic systems to have. I suspect its a mix. The people on the upper end of the IQ spectrum tend to lead wholly uninspiring lives; the 276 guy isn't the only example, fraud or not, there's a couple university professors with relatively average publishing history, a couple suicides, a couple wacko cult leaders, a couple self-help gurus... and the goat, Terrance Tao, he's up there, but its interesting how poorly the measure correlates with anything we'd describe as "success". The apologists enter the chat and state "well, its because they're frauds or they're gaming the system" without an ounce of recognition that this is exactly what we're designing AI systems to do: Cheat the test. If you expect being able to pass intelligence evals as being a way to grow intelligence, well, I suspect that will work out just about as well as IQ tests do for identifying individuals capable of things like highly creative invention.