We tried to model a complex phenomenon using a single scalar, and this resulted in confusion and clouded intuition. It’s sort of useful for humans because of restriction of range, along with a lot of correlation that comes from looking only at human brain operations when talking about ‘g’ or IQ or whatever. Trying to think in terms of a scalar ‘intelligence’ measure when dealing with non-human intelligences is not going to be very productive.
I somewhat disagree here. Yes, If we truly tried to create a scalar intelligence that was definable across the entirety of the mathematical multiverse, the No Free Lunch theorem would tell us this can’t happen.
However, instrumental convergence exists, so general intelligence can be done in practice.
We tried to model a complex phenomenon using a single scalar, and this resulted in confusion and clouded intuition.
It’s sort of useful for humans because of restriction of range, along with a lot of correlation that comes from looking only at human brain operations when talking about ‘g’ or IQ or whatever.
Trying to think in terms of a scalar ‘intelligence’ measure when dealing with non-human intelligences is not going to be very productive.
I somewhat disagree here. Yes, If we truly tried to create a scalar intelligence that was definable across the entirety of the mathematical multiverse, the No Free Lunch theorem would tell us this can’t happen.
However, instrumental convergence exists, so general intelligence can be done in practice.
From tailcalled here:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GZgLa5Xc4HjwketWe/instrumental-convergence-is-what-makes-general-intelligence
Specifically, there are common subtasks to real world tasks.