However, we do believe that the key potential advantage of AI systems over their human counterparts would be the ability to quickly process large amounts of information, which in humans is approximated by scores such as IQ. If that skill were key to successful leadership of companies or countries, then we would expect CEOs and leaders to come from the top 0.1% (≈ +3σ) of the distribution of such scores. The data does not bear this out.
It maybe true that within the range of +2 standard deviations to +5 standard deviations, factors other than intelligence (such as luck, or charisma, or emotional intelligence) dominate executive success.
But it doesn’t necessarily follow that there are negligible gains to intelligence far beyond this range.
In fact, it doesn’t even imply that there are negligible returns to intelligence within that range.
It might be that greater intelligence is, at every level, a sizable advantage. However, If any other factor is important, at all, that’s going to pull down the average cognitive ability of CEOs, etc. Selection on those other factors will tend to pull down the average IQ.
If one can be a successful CEO by being on the Pareto frontier of IQ and charisma and luck and emotional intelligence, you should expect to see that most CEOs will be moderately, but not overwhelmingly intelligent. Not because intelligence doesn’t matter, but because high IQs are rare and because the absolute smartest people aren’t much more likely to be adequately charismatic or lucky or emotionally perceptive.
But if you can hold those other factors constant, more intellectual capability might be monotonically beneficial.
Indeed, this is my actual belief about the world, rather than merely a hypothetical statistical possibility.
It maybe true that within the range of +2 standard deviations to +5 standard deviations, factors other than intelligence (such as luck, or charisma, or emotional intelligence) dominate executive success.
But it doesn’t necessarily follow that there are negligible gains to intelligence far beyond this range.
In fact, it doesn’t even imply that there are negligible returns to intelligence within that range.
It might be that greater intelligence is, at every level, a sizable advantage. However, If any other factor is important, at all, that’s going to pull down the average cognitive ability of CEOs, etc. Selection on those other factors will tend to pull down the average IQ.
If one can be a successful CEO by being on the Pareto frontier of IQ and charisma and luck and emotional intelligence, you should expect to see that most CEOs will be moderately, but not overwhelmingly intelligent. Not because intelligence doesn’t matter, but because high IQs are rare and because the absolute smartest people aren’t much more likely to be adequately charismatic or lucky or emotionally perceptive.
But if you can hold those other factors constant, more intellectual capability might be monotonically beneficial.
Indeed, this is my actual belief about the world, rather than merely a hypothetical statistical possibility.