What does this really mean?

You or myself as an individual has the raw intelligence available yo solve a real problem yet it goes unsolved .
We misunderstand not because our brain can't understand , it's a software problem.
We have to use our consciousness to navigate and put in lot of effort to solve the problem misunderstanding
" Consideration of all known varibles"
This means we have a computer ( brain)
That is more powerful than we even need to solve the problem .
The solution has to come from a different place than pure number crunching, or cognition.
When it comes to AI
This holds true as well different problems need solutions for which are entirely different frameworks philosophically.
Take a Google super computer.
Being able to access a library of information about any topic and sorting through the IP locations is s different type of problem than one where the Google computer experiences what it is like to be alive.
No amount if getting good at the one is informative of the second.

 

Google can index information just fine.
But what it cannot do is put a accuracy in percentage on top every page of information .
( Say conspiracy theory page on top saying 2 percent accuracy, and on a page regarding Einstein's theory of relativety put a 80 percent accuracy on top of the page)

 

I always like to point out that perception bears little resemblance to reality. Very few can walk walk a mile in anyone elses moccasins and know how any other being experiences their own personel reality. What we all do is align ourselves with how we feel or think with whatever resonates within us that relates to that truth by another. In this vein, AI cannot experience depth of emotion, or any emotion for that matter, so can never be artistic. What it can do is copy what others have done without true references which is what the vast majority of human "artists" do on a daily basis. There is only a very small percentage of creators that drudge deeply from their core and tap into something akin to that which is far greater than the sum of their own parts and are then able to share that which is fostered in a way that they don't even know the origin of or can understand. To be unique is a gift that sparks emotion, creativity and thought in others. AI seems to write music through mimicry of what has come before without experiencing anything that it can spit out through a pair of monitors. To me listening to AI created music or looking at the art is akin to having sex with a sex doll or a dildo; you may get off but you are only fucking yourself and imagining it otherwise. If that is the future of music I would wish to remain an audio celibate.

 

Is it warm in here?..........

 

Hmmm. You didn't begin.

You didn't do that in support of your claim that "intelligence has gone down".

Is intelligence innate or acquired? Is it a genetic disposition, that flowers in a suitable environment? Or is education alone enough?

Where are you speaking about? The USA? China? India? The globe, in aggregate? What measurements have you (or anyone else) made? Are they valid? (What are the measurements measuring?) As you yourself said, there are real issues with defining human attributes and characteristics.....including things such as intelligence.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't have to believe it. ;)

I mean, *why* would it have happened? How? I don't see there can be anything less or more than a very nuanced take on the question. There isn't an answer available, imo. I see no reason to imagine "average intelligence" has decreased. We have better food, better education, more knowledge.......

 

This will get you started
https://www.google.com/amp/s/relay....ecline-living-planet-report-conservation-news
Your setting me up to have to repeat almost everything I have already said 5 mins ago homes
( Add) perhaps?

 

Dude....
Intelligence is going up and has been going up. So much so that iQ Test have to be
constantly adjusted (Flynn_effect).

You need better sources sorry to say

 

So you believe that the specific context I spoke about in several large comment boxes (plain to see for everyone), is relavant to your comment here?
I'm having difficulty seeing that connection .

 

"Focusing on one part of the IQ test, the Raven's Progressive Matrices, they found that on average intelligence has risen the equivalent of 20 IQ points since 1950."

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31556802

 

Yes, that is true.
Intelligence being defined as doing well on that test .
So we compartmentalizing
" Doing well on this test"
Into a shorter package with the label
" Intelligence"
However I am using intelligence as a different label to a different package with a higher standard than simply a generic label.

However we can take a different approach .
Imagine a situation where your comment here is making a different type of statement

" Human beings, individually are more intelligent now than before 1950"

We can now look at the proposition and compare to how we know reality to be .

We should see actions of people and outcomes being compatible with the statement if it is true, and we should see the opposite if it is not true.

Less pollution on the planet after 1950 due to technology massive increase along with increase of intelligence ?
More sophisication in the arts due to technology and rasing intelligence?
Less damage to living creatures than before 1950?
Less use of precious resources?

What about individuals in life as lifestyle.

More and more increase in attention span due yo intelligence and Tech increase?

People becoming more and more responsible for themselves and able to live on their own survive than before 1950?

Having entire library of knowledge in your pocket of science combined higher intelligence
Should see general public vocabulary increase 100 fold?
I can go on for days and days.

 

you mean this that?
yeas i read it. But the specific thing i replied to had a simple scientific retort.

as the rest
assertions without proof can be dismissed without proof.
complaining about sheet music while disregarding the unbelievable harsh and brutal existence
in the 19th and early 20th century is absolutely foreign to me.
but as society's do we all are changing. New Possibilities arise new challenges have to be met.

Talk and further info

A more comprehensive reform of the school system is in order
i give you that (sheet)Muic and the arts in general should probably have a different status.
People are working on that. maybe you cant too. i do ;)

 

We're

Don't know how much you read what I wrote before those quotes are just couple tiny comments out of the whole context.
I'll try to be clear
We live in a world right now today
Where even as the totality of human knowledge increases.
More than half the world's population as individuals live a lifestyle outsourcing their intelligence.

I use the word intelligence to mean
" Consideration of all known varibles"
So Google is great at indexing information online
But to be intelligent Google would have to be able to give you an accuracy percentage regarding the content of each page .
For example ( conspiracy theory webpage 4 percent accurate) Einstein's Theory of relativety 83 percent accurate )

Regarding human beings a person can use tools of technology to do things they otherwise could not thereby increasing intelligence .
Or they can use it as a crutch to fo shittier things than the real life version
For example having the entire world's worth of knowledge yet an individual chooses to have never spent long hard effort actually researching in depth to understand any topic , resulting in getting dumber overtime.

" The consideration of all known varibles"
Is what I mean by intelligence.
Why?
Because the moment you miss 2 or 3 varibles now you are misunderstanding not undetstanding.

In most simple possible terms

My definition of intelligence is reduction of misunderstanding .

If it was true individuals getting more intelligent over time , the reflection in reality we would have to see is much much less understanding in the world to than the past .
Reality IMHO shows more misunderstanding now than ever.
(
After saying all that my position is that there is still 20 percent or so of population more intelligent than ever before due to responsible use of technology is s tool for advancement(

 

Enlightened words of a great perception! Although I may need to borrow your AI for further analysis. It appears she may hold the key to a new understand for me

 

If we lived in a world where it was true that most individuals were more intelligent than in the past how could this topic of AI possibly taking over producers jobs even exist?
After all, everyone living in 1930s,or20s,or1800s,or1600s
Knew that art is .category dealing with the human beings emotions coming out and touching the listener.
What kind of more intelligent music listeners
Are going to think to themselves

"I definitely want music to listen to which has zero emotion behind it's creation!"

How could that ever be even a possibility with a majority of the population being more intelligent than ever?

 

i mean i get you to some degree.
But like you said to understand each other wee must each use terms and conditions
that resemble reality (to some extent) if you start redefining words the miss-understanding will grow.

from what i see (maybe i´m wrong) you take a too little sample and transpose that to large phenomena.
fear of ai will effect less some of the working (blue)white collar but can
harshly cut the top and bottom of society like right now
Wall street, (Amazon) fulfillment centers,
truck drivers, trainsdriver.
Labworkers, webdevs etc.

knowing about art and appreciating it. is again very different.
16-1900 the normal people didnt see it in day to day life, that is common now.
that was a game for rich people. Philosophy was for priests and scholars.
there was no to little maths & science education.

the fear of a.i. in general is all the conditioning we got through popular cultur scifi
and the lack of understanding of working (computer) systems.
conscience is still to a large part a mystery to us. so do you expect we
stumble about the invention artificial conscience by chance?
Ai. and A.C. are different altogether
i think there willl be def more automation. Like it started over 100 years ago
and we will adapt (if we survive).
thats what we do, as humans.

In the last 15 years 50% of all humans arose out of Absolut Poverty.
There is more good than bad news around the globe.

 

Yes.
The area I was touching on is more to do with the aspects of human choices of lifestyle restricting their intelligence due to outsourcing out of laziness and comfort.
But yes I do have more positive outlook than negative for sure.
But there are areas of concern in specific contexts.

Regarding AI and fear.
I view " artificial intelligence"
Like I view all words , it's a container for a larger description ,which to save time you use the container.
I don't have any fear for that container .
However in different contexts of the reality of it actually existing I believe there are serious concerns regarding it.
For example this lazy outsourcing of intelligence done by high percentage if population more and more over time is massive concern of coupled with anything existing in reality which could be considered true AI
However the way AI is used right now and what we see on the horizon , is not conscious robots with super human intelligence.
Instead AI is used to describe
A high level of computation.
Which I stated before I don't not consider intelligence whatsoever.

Say example you take a human being with incredible imsgination can create massive fantasy world down to each detail in imagination.
However this person is so reality detached that you would have to pull them by the collar away from incoming traffic,
That is impossible for me to think of as more intelligent , because even 5 year old gets away from traffic .what that person is , happens to be more imaginative.
Even though inside their brain thoughts come faster they visualize and think quicker than normal, their not more intelligent because 8ntrlligrnce to me is
" Consideration of all known varibles"
In this instance the varibles related to their own safety and well-being are not being considered, therefore they actually less intelligent than normal.

Here is another example
A extremely high functioning serial killer that can plan Every detail of capturing their victims commiting the crime , covering up the evidence and getting away with it.
This person is certainly lesser intelligent than normal average.
Because there are many many varibles they not considering on many fronts just to even be violent, let alone to go through that level of detail and planning .
Now average person will consider more varibles philosophically and discover that harming another is like if someone harmed you that way . You do not want to be harmed or tortured or killed therefore to be intelligent us to apply that to how you treat others because there is no philosophical justification for not wanting harm on yourself , but harming another in the exact ways which your against it for yourself.

 

Your links leads to this:

That's quite a different matter, and I see no reason to dispute it. ;)

One could quite easily argue that's a result of rising average intelligence. Intelligence and wisdom are different things, though related?

I see laziness as a very positive thing. Or at least it can be.

It's the "reason" we invent time-saving devices? It's the reason for automation?

Having a completely automated world is only problematic for socio-economic systems that base distribution on work done (or some other conditionality). If the pre-requisites of life can be provided by automation without any human input then we should all be overjoyed, in many ways. It would free us from drudgery and toil. But this would require a different socio-economic system, where distribution (of the products of automation) was not based on conditionalities which only make sense when human work is required.

This is why current anxieties exist over automation - what happens when there are no workers and nobody can afford to buy the stuff produced by automated factories etc? Marx signalled this problem (workers get paid less than the value of their product - so how can they buy what they produce?) But Marx never posited the notion that automation and AI might one day make all work superfluous. But if one thinks about it, there is a very simple solution - egalitarian distribution (which Marx saw as a future form of organisation demanded by extrapolating human and material development.)

Characteristics such as intelligence are acquired in evolution because they are "fitter" - they provide a reproductive advantage. Why would stupidity be a reproductive advantage? So how will it become "fitter"? Generally people choose a more intelligent partner than a less intelligent one? For good reason.

To imagine that humans would lose their hands (or intelligence) because they don't use them so much is surely Lamarkian fallacy - the common fallacy that giraffes developed long necks because they kept trying and wanted to eat leaves on higher branches. Rather giraffes acquired long necks because (by chance mutation) those with longer necks were better able to reproduce (because they could reach a food source other mammals could not). So....if stupidity enabled humans to better reproduce, it would become an acquired characteristic, as they would out-produce the more intelligent.

Granted, if intelligence no longer provides a positive advantage for reproduction then, whilst not being selected against, it would nevertheless not be selected for. The film "Idiocracy" takes this idea and runs with it? "Smart people don't reproduce, but stupid people do" ?

But then, what's the evidence this (very long term?) process has already overtaken the worldwide pressure for natural selection of intelligence? The 'affluent West' only makes up about 10% of world population, and even then, only 1% of that 10% (ie 0.1%) is wildly affluent such as to be potentially excluded from the pressures of selection for intelligence? And quite a number of that cohort would be significantly above average intelligence, I assume. They can literally "afford" to lose it.

So, I can't see how "intelligence is decreasing". Certainly not without a lot of evidence - and anecdotal evidence and opinion doesn't cut it.

And where is your argument going? Social Darwinism? Euthanasia of the sick? Forced sterilisation of "the stupid"? I doubt you mean to pursue to such ideas, but maybe they are a consequence of your position, even if you don't realise it? I'm always suspicious of anyone pursuing such notions. And of course, they never include themselves in their malign categories of the stupid, the sick, the socially harmful, etc.

Besides, underlying such arguments there is an assumption that intelligence is innately "good" beyond its utility to humanity. But that's a nonsense in an amoral cosmos. The cosmos does not care, not for intelligence nor for humanity.

 

G string thanks for your input, I'm going to leave space for others on this thread now my friends .

 

Intelligence has zero to do with taste in music or absolutely about taste in anything else. Intelligence cannot dictate a person's choices, though it can help one explain why they have made those choices. There are a very many highly intelligent fools running around spouting theories of everything under the sun and beyond, but by dark end's day it seems to me that there are always huge gaps in logic when trying their best to pigeonhole people into categories to suit a preconcieved idea, be it a noble cause or otherwise, and what I have noticed in these decades spanning two centuries is that the vast majority of categorizers will almost always proclaim themselves superior without that dispassionate eye needed to actually perform the desired task. Nothing is completely black or white except NASA White and the utter blacjness of black holes.

(No animal has been hurt in the making of this post, it has been reviewed by two members of the ASPCA)