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.
> 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.
Babbling in the mathematics sense: no information transmitted.
I agree with you in the linguistic sense on the word 'intelligence'. Everyone has their own colloquial meaning. That doesn't make their definitions correct. If someone says, "exponential growth," just to mean fast growth, they're wrong (according to me). It's impossible to have universally agreed upon definitions, but we can at least try to standardize some of them. If you only care about intelligence in regards to a specific niche, add adjectives not definitions.
IQ tests measure 'intelligence' in the general, correct sense of the word. Not perfectly, but they're pretty good. If you care about a specific task, you can finetune on that task. While a generally intelligent agent will do better than a less intelligent agent at pretty much all tasks, it can still be defeated by test-time compute.
> 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!
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!"
> 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.
> What makes something funny? Usually, it's by subverting someone's predictions.
And in those other cases? You have a rigorous definition of comedy?
> You have to explain a phenomenon better than the truth to convince someone of your lie.
This is so often not true I would argue it's generally false. A story is believed because a listener "wants" to believe it. Some listeners have more or less complex criteria for acceptance.
> 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.
People like Tolkien and Martin? Note taking as a sign of poor skill/intelligence is a wildly novel take from my point of view.
> Also, using the adjectives 'complex, multi-faceted' is lazy here. Be more introspective and write what you really want to say.
Couldn't I say the same about your use of Introspective? Surely a more detailed phrase exists to describe what you mean.
> interpersonal conflicts... Quite often not an intelligence problem.
Oh, I think this will get at the root of our misunderstandings. I believe I've seen this attitude before. Before I jump to conclusions: Why exactly do you say this skill is not intelligence-based?
> And in those other cases? You have a rigorous definition of comedy?
There's surely more to comedy than subverting expectations. Someone else who cares more about comedy in particular can figure that out for themself, but surely I gave enough of the general idea to make it clear how you could go about measuring the intelligence necessary for comedy.
> A story is believed because a listener "wants" to believe it. Some listeners have more or less complex criteria for acceptance.
Yeah, that's the sense of "better" I was going for. I could have been more clear here, so I'm glad you figured out what I meant.
> Couldn't I say the same about your use of Introspective? Surely a more detailed phrase exists to describe what you mean.
It was a not-so-kind way of saying, "don't point at vague ideas to obscure what you really mean and make it difficult for others to understand what you mean to keep your opinion unassailable."
> Why exactly do you say this skill [resolving conflicts] is not intelligence-based?
Most people have more time to think than they actually use during conflicts, so I expect most of the time conflicts come from people preferring to not think than because they lack the ability. That or a fundamental value difference (you want my food, I want my food).
> Most people have more time to think than they actually use during conflicts, so I expect most of the time conflicts come from people preferring to not think than because they lack the ability.
This seems to imply that intelligence only exists in deliberate, conscious thought. Do you think that's true?
Second, revolving conflicts is not the same thing as getting into them, so it's unclear why bring that up at all.
True. I expect most conflicts come from people preferring not to think, and I also expect most conflicts escalate from people preferring not to think. Those are separate statements, and I only said the former.
> This seems to imply that intelligence only exists in deliberate, conscious thought. Do you think that's true?
Eh, I don't think it implies that, and I also don't think that is true.
What you need for conflict resolution is usually a willingness to try to resolve the conflict. In rare situations, where communication and time is limited, you can actually run into the issue where you have to be smart enough to figure out what the other person wants (and see if you can come up with a mutually beneficial offer), but often in real life you can just spend more time thinking and ask them what they want.
Reducing comedy to 'subverting predictions' and empathy to 'compression algorithms' is like explaining music as 'organized sound waves', technically defensible yet completely missing the point. Missing the forest for the trees is an objective sign of limited metacognition, by the way.
The fact that you claim to be 'above average' at empathy and social cues while writing this robotic dismissal that completely misses the point (I asked for measurement methods, you provided questionable definitions) is the ultimate proof of my argument. You haven't defined intelligence, you've just compressed the meaning of it until it's small enough to fit inside your ego.
I purposefully do not give out methods to measure intelligence, because people can train on them. I knew you wanted that, but that does not mean you get what you want. I also find it strange how you expect me to be empathetic in a way that makes you feel good about yourself, when you deserve no such compassion after pulling the dark arts on me.
That's ok, me and my "dark arts" will have to make do without your "compassion", somehow. And the world will have to make do without "training" on your secret "methods to measure intelligence", somehow.
I don't appreciate your expletives in your original unedited post, by the way, but the fact that you lost your temper is once again proof of something. You sound young, so I hope one day you "find a short program" to recover that data.
That last part was not sarcasm, in case you have any trouble picking it up.
> I don't appreciate your expletives in your original unedited post, by the way, but the fact that you lost your temper is once again proof of something.
It was the first edit where I added them, since I could not reply to your post, and I removed them once I could reply. Yes, I lost my temper. You did too (and first)... you're just less honest and put up a facade of politeness.
> And the world will have to make do without "training" on your secret "methods to measure intelligence", somehow.
Is the goal here to provoke me enough to get what you want? lol. Maximally adversarial.
If you want to have a discussion in good faith, then you need to work on your rhetoric. People are unlikely to want to engage with you, here or in your real life, if you regularly talk like that. Seek help.
My goal wasn't to have a discussion, it was to shut down the propagation of lies. This is one of those memetic viruses that people keep passing around, that most people passing around don't even bother to think about, and it has some pretty negative consequences, such as aiding in the elimination of American gifted programs.
Honestly not sure if this is a bit, it's so on-the-nose... Taking it at face value, you are literally claiming to know precisely what intelligence is? You would be the first to know if so. You should probably publish quickly before someone steals your definition!
In your post is demonstrated one of the deep mysteries of intelligence: How can a smart person make such a dumb assertion? (I'll give a hint: consider that "intelligence" is not a single axis)
I think Solomonoff beat me by about 70 years, and Wissner-Gross & Freer by about 10 years. Even if I had something novel to publish in this area, I think I would rather do something like solve ARC-AGI and make a lot of money.
1. Religious mysticism. The murkier people are on concepts like thinking, consciousness, and intelligence, the easier it is to claim they include some metaphysical aspect. Since you cannot actually pin down the metaphysical aspect, they must claim it is because you cannot pin down the physical aspect.
2. People do not like feeling less intelligent than other people, so they try to make the comparator ill-defined.
#2 is not relevant, and it also seems basically untrue.
So your belief is that the global scientific community broadly agrees that "intelligence" has not been rigorously defined because the global scientific community is trapped in religious mysticism?
I am going to be honest, and I'm not saying this as a jab - this is starting to sound completely disconnected from reality. The people who study intelligence are not, as a rule, mired in metsphysical hand-waving.
Huh? You asked, "why is there broad consensus today that intelligence is ill-defined?" That's what I answered. Did you mean to ask a different question, "why is there broad consensus among people who research intelligence that it is ill-defined?" Which kinds of people are you talking about? The information theorists? The machine learning researchers? The linguists? The psychologists?
The information theorists generally agree it has a precise definition, though they may choose different ones. The machine learning researchers typically only know how to run empirical experiments, but a small group of them do theory, and they generally agree intelligence is low Kolmogorov complexity. The linguists generally agree it cannot be defined, in the nihilistic sense, but if you posit a bunch of brains, then words have meaning by being signals between brains and intelligence is moving the words closer to the information bottleneck. I don't know what the psychologists say on the matter, though I wonder if they have the mathematical tools to even say things precisely.
Ok.. Let’s ask a different question. Assuming development of super-intelligence is possible.. How do you measure it? What criteria satisfies the “this is super intelligence”? You honestly sound like most pseudo-intellectuals I hear discussing this very topic..: Ironic how you think you’re the brilliant one and it’s others who are stupid… Actually not really ironic a fool doesn’t know he is a fool.
I literally gave you the criterion. You can measure, "I have this model that is supposed to compress data. I have this data. Does it compress the data into fewer bits than other models? Than humans?"
Or, "I have this game and this model. Does the model win the game more often than other models or humans?"
Or, "I have this model that takes in states in an environment and outputs actions. I have this environment. Does the actions it outputs have a higher discounted future entropy than other models or humans?"
I think the issue with the irrationality is that it isn't random. If some people made a mistake 20% of the time, completely randomly, when deciding between two products, it doesn't matter too much, and the dollars flow to the person who trembles less. However, humans can be exploited to make more mistakes. Gambling companies are a clear example, but I think run-of-the-mill advertising optimizes to be exploitative more than informative as well. Thus, all the dollars get sucked in by people who are actively anti-social, instead of those that offer a better product or make fewer mistakes.
(1) makes companies market (lie) more aggressively, because it ends up working out.
(2) makes prices irrational, because if a bunch of stupid people will buy your shit product, why would you care about the 1% who actually do their research?
(1) But that's how commerce works. Does a product sell? Okay sell it more.
(2) People who "do their research" aren't entitled to anything. Maybe they just won't buy it? Then it's not for them. I don't understand what "makes prices irrational" would even mean in this context. The right price is whatever maximizes P * Q.
(1) You don't see the problem with people who are better at manipulating and lying to others through deceptive advertising getting a bigger market share? That's just so obviously bad for society.
(2) Suppose you need insulin to live, but it's suddenly become a meme to start snorting insulin and all the stupids make the price shoot through the roof. That's what stupid people "making prices irrational" looks like, and it happens with fads, or inferior products, or even allowing actual scams to be posted in online marketplaces. Happy smiles on paid actors should not be enough to make your product more appealing than your competitors', and yet the stupids will drive out of business people who don't engage in such pathological behavior.
Far too much marketing speech, far too little math or theory, and completely misses the mark on the 'next frontier'. Maybe four years ago, spatial reasoning was the problem to solve, but by 2022 it was solved. All that remained was scaling up. The actual three next problems to solve (in order of when they will be solved) are:
If there isn't a path humans know how to take with their current technology, it isn't a solved problem. It's much different than people training an image model for research purposes, and knowing that $100m in compute is probably enough for a basic video model.
Large latent flow models are unbiased. On the other hand, if you purely use policy optimization, RLHF will be biased towards short horizons. If you add in a value network, the value has some bias (e.g. MSE loss on the value --> Gaussian bias). Also, most RL has some adversarial loss (how do you train your preference network?), which makes the loss landscape fractal which SGD smooths incorrectly. So, basically, there's a lot of biases that show up in RL training which can make it both hard to train, and even if successful, not necessarily optimizing what you want.
This is only for review/position papers, though I agree that pretty much all ML papers for the past 20 years have been slop. I also consider the big names like, "Adam", "Attention", or "Diffusion" slop, because even thought they are powerful and useful, the presentation is so horrible (for the first two) or they contain major mistakes in the justication of why they work (the last two) that they should never have gotten past review without major rewrites.
No, they aren't. Locally, the person with the most esoteric knowledge is probably a weird nerd. It's mostly an accident that they chose to invest time in things typically associated with smarts. But globally, the best wizards got there by making it their profession. So maybe at your middling university, the people who could land a job at a frontier lab were nerdy wannabe frats, but at decent universities like MIT or Tsinghua, they're usually just better in every aspect of their lives. E.g. MIT has "math olympiad fraternities" all the cool kids join.
I went to a top 5 ranked school globally (~these lists fluctuate) and have been in elite circles since then. I can promise you that even there the autistic nerd fully outcompetes the renaissaince man.
We don't even try. In the US you demonstrate that you know the rules at one point in time and that's it, as long as you never get a DUI you're good.
For instance, the 2003 California Driver's Handbook[1] first introduced the concept of "bike lanes" to driver education, but contains the advice "You may park in the bike lane unless signs say “NO PARKING.”" which is now illegal. Anyone who took their test in the early 2000s is likely unaware that changed.
It also lacks any instruction whatsoever on common modern roadway features like roundabouts or shark teeth yield lines, but we still consider drivers who only ever studied this book over 20 years ago to be qualified on modern roads.
Some places will dismiss a traffic ticket if you attend a driver's education class to get updates, though you can only do this once every few years. So at least there have been some attempts to get people to update their learning.
> No amount of crashing results in traffic school, just certain kinds of tickets.
Well, sufficient at-fault crashing will suspended your license, and among other requirements for restoring the license may be traffic school, DUI school, or some other program depending on the reason for suspension, so this is not strictly correct. You can't use optional voluntary traffic school to clear points from a collision from your record BEFORE getting a suspension the way you can with minor moving violations without a collision, but that doesn’t mean collisions won’t force you into traffic school.
Which states/counties/cities? IME that rarely happens, tickets are often used for revenue-raising. And some recent laws e.g. 2008, 2009, 2025 CA cellphone use laws cannot be discharged by traffic school, AFAIK.
> Anyone who took their test in the early 2000s is likely unaware that changed.
That's silly. People become aware of new laws all the time without having to attend a training course or read an updated handbook.
I took the CA driver's written test for the first time in 2004 when I moved here from another state. I don't recall whether or not there was anything in the handbook about bike lanes, but I certainly found out independently when it became illegal to park in one.
I don't doubt that many people are aware of many of the new laws. But I strongly suspect that a very significant number of drivers are unaware of many new laws.
The model seems pretty shitty. Does it only look on a frame-by-frame basis? Literally one second of video context and it would never make that mistake.
What dates? 2000 August–2025 August gives 3.18%/year for the consumer index and 7.12%/year for egg prices. Even if you assume egg prices will come down to $3/dozen, it's still 6.24%/year.
