This seems great. Better to have superintelligent people than superintelligent AI. I only have one concern, which is how the IQ is measured? I was assessed as a child and told I was average IQ and that I’d probably never learn English or Mathematics. But when I was 12 I scored 125 on the Mensa.dk test, and a while ago I scored 150+ on BRGHT so I’m not as dumb as the system believes. Not that I would recommend making any more of me.
That type of IQ tests only measure one type of intelligence, and I believe that verbal intelligence is more important for regular functioning, and that memory and working memory shouldn’t be neglected either (they are part of what made Neumann such a monster). I will even claim that most teachers won’t be able to tell the difference between a student with great memory and a student with great spatial intelligence until at least college.
These are all just grouped under “IQ”, and, I would argue, often measured quite poorly. Not to mention that the concept of IQ is under a lot of political pressure and emotionally/morally motivated criticism from people who barely understand the subject, like that video from Oxford where the speaker seems to think that fluid intelligence is the same thing as creativity.
This seems great. Better to have superintelligent people than superintelligent AI.
I only have one concern, which is how the IQ is measured? I was assessed as a child and told I was average IQ and that I’d probably never learn English or Mathematics. But when I was 12 I scored 125 on the Mensa.dk test, and a while ago I scored 150+ on BRGHT so I’m not as dumb as the system believes. Not that I would recommend making any more of me.
That type of IQ tests only measure one type of intelligence, and I believe that verbal intelligence is more important for regular functioning, and that memory and working memory shouldn’t be neglected either (they are part of what made Neumann such a monster). I will even claim that most teachers won’t be able to tell the difference between a student with great memory and a student with great spatial intelligence until at least college.
These are all just grouped under “IQ”, and, I would argue, often measured quite poorly. Not to mention that the concept of IQ is under a lot of political pressure and emotionally/morally motivated criticism from people who barely understand the subject, like that video from Oxford where the speaker seems to think that fluid intelligence is the same thing as creativity.
I also hope that not all popularized IQ scores are included in that dataset. There are some false positives, like Christopher Langan (I don’t know how to format links): https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/a38tik/the_mega_test_and_bullshitchristopher_langan/
But the genes of previous geniuses who actually contributed to humanity, are valuable