News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on To have a moral stance on AI is to be an outcast, and it sucks. Parent comment

Re:To have a moral stance on AI is to be an outcast, and it ... by gobdovan on Saturday May 30, 2026 @01:02PM (#48338407)
IQ tests are restandardised from time to time. We could take the scores from 100 years ago and see that everybody would be gifted.

Intelligence is usually defined as the skill in pursuing a goal, or speed of acquiring the ability for pursuing given goal. Given the goal-dependent nature, it's not that useful to use the same tests and measurements for intelligence over time, be it artificial or not.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:To have a moral stance on AI is to be an outcast, and it ... by gobdovan on Saturday May 30, 2026 @01:36PM (#48338745)
[0] JR Flynn: The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978.

[1] Legg, S., Hutter, M.: A collection of definitions of intelligence

[2] François Chollet, On the Measure of Intelligence

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:To have a moral stance on AI is to be an outcast, and it ... by skeledrew on Saturday May 30, 2026 @01:42PM (#48338811)
So it's an ever-shifting goalpost, which makes it pretty useless as an objective.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:To have a moral stance on AI is to be an outcast, and it ... by gobdovan on Saturday May 30, 2026 @01:53PM (#48338918)
Yeah, but there's attempts to fix it. The Cholet paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01547) is a good attempt, shifting from measuring ~skill to measuring ~acquiring skill. It's the framework behind ARC-AGI benchmarks.
[ Parent | on HN ]