European IQ map

axer

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Were we talking about an IQ test here or not?

Yes, but you are calling psychologists quacks as if you know better.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

See this is what I'm talking about. Complete lack of understanding of what intelligence actually is. A scythe does a job better than humans for a limited definition of "job", does that make it smarter?

A scythe cannot cut grass by itself if it could then it would be an intelligent scythe.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

AI is not in existence in any way, shape, means or form today. Christ almighty what an ignorant statement.

Lol, you should really inform yourself before making such statements. Maybe start by reading up on what AI is. How am I supposed to be able to debate against someone who is just making it up as they go along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_artificial_intelligence wrote:

Artificial intelligence has been used in a wide range of fields including medical diagnosis, stock trading, robot control, law, scientific discovery and toys.
Many practical applications are dependent on artificial neural networks, networks that pattern their organization in mimicry of a brain's neurons, which have been found to excel in pattern recognition.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Aaahahahahah!! He finally gets it! /facepalm

How do I argue with someone who is not even arguing about the topic at hand. You are arguing about basically recreating the brain. I am arguing about the effectiveness of IQ tests as a tool for psychologists.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Sigh. The chess computer was reprogrammed after every move by its team to take account of the moves of its opponent. And even then chess is a simple game with a discrete number of moves at any given time. Its about a billion miles away from intelligence.

A computer being able to play chess is AI.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I mean what, do you look into you monitor when you turn on your computer and feel there is some sort of "intelligence" looking back at you? Its no more intelligent than a shovel or a dishcloth. Its this sort of primitive witchdoctoring that defines the mental health professions today.

Yes, there is AI in use in computers.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I can't think of a more profound waste of time.

Again, because you know better than the countless psychologists who use such tools. Great to know you are so highly qualified and experienced.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

You know whats interesting about your high sounding definition, if you try to make it into anything even vaguely useable in terms of AI, its worthless. So by definition, your definition is useless.

Not my definition. Go read up on what you are talking about since your posts lack any substance and come back with some real arguments instead of "the majority of people that are qualified in this field are wrong but i'm right because I just know"

Tar.Aldarion

Overheal wrote: »

You tell him sam! Give into the petty argument and let everyone know you care about what they think of your IQ!

seriously people try putting mensa membership on your CV - it just makes you seem arrogant.

'Why should I pick you over somebody else?'
'I'm smarter than them'

electric69

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well bang goes gene theory then.

Would have to disagree with you there. I have an ability to do mental arithmetic faster than most people can do it on a calculator,whereas nobody else in my family can compare to my ability.

Tar.Aldarion

What does that prove?

electric69

What does that prove?

In repsonse to another post:

vinylmesh wrote: »

I don't think there's much of a genetic basis for I.Q

The brain is like a muscle- If you want to be good at one aspect of brain power (e.g mental arithmetic) then you'll have to practise it!

Genius isn't something people are born with, it's something they aquire.

Tar.Aldarion

So are you saying you believe it is genes or something you can acquire?

electric69

Im saying it is something you have to pratice. My family are all intelligent people but maybe not all of us are in a conventional way. I presonally have a very high IQ, but i was not always the most academic in certain aspects. I have an ability to do mental arithmetic unlike anyone i have ever met. I was not born with this ability and i taught myself from the age of 10 how to multiply large numbers in my head and be able to spit the answer out almost as quick as i can say the sum outloud. I had a pretty crap leaving cert compared to my sister who would be more intelligent in the conventional way but then my I.Q is higher than hers.

SimpleSam06

axer wrote: »

A scythe cannot cut grass by itself if it could then it would be an intelligent scythe.

No, it would be a lawnmower.

axer wrote: »

How do I argue with someone who is not even arguing about the topic at hand. You are arguing about basically recreating the brain. I am arguing about the effectiveness of IQ tests as a tool for psychologists.

Hokay, concentrate now. IQ=Intelligence Quotient, for the important part of that, Intelligence, you need to have a definitive description, which you don't have, as evidenced by the spectacular lack of AI currently in existence.

axer wrote: »

A computer being able to play chess is AI.

By your definition, a roomba is AI. Being able to calculate the minimum amount of steps to achieve a desired mathematical goal isn't AI, its a glorified abacus.

axer wrote: »

Yes, there is AI in use in computers.

Just because you don't understand electronics and microcircuits doesn't mean other people don't. So just because it seems like the workings of arcane spirits to you, don't make it so.

axer wrote: »

Again, because you know better than the countless psychologists who use such tools. Great to know you are so highly qualified and experienced.

I wonder did alchemists used to say that to people.

axer wrote: »

since your posts lack any substance and come back with some real arguments

Heres a good idea, champ, maybe you should get hurrying along and start your google engines. Don't worry, you don't need to sacrifice any chickens to do so. Start out with these dramatic and earth shaking improvements in the IQ test in recent years that have so profoundly reshaped the psychological world.

Then maybe we might have the beginnings of a discussion.

SimpleSam06

axer wrote: »

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
Artificial intelligence has been used in a wide range of fields including medical diagnosis, stock trading, robot control, law, scientific discovery and toys.

And just to complete that paragraph, the bit you left out was: Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use it is no longer considered artificial intelligence

OK-Cancel-Apply

Hmmm. Tabloid + "IQ tests" + Nations ...*sniiiifffff sniff*... Bullsh1t?

axer

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

No, it would be a lawnmower.

A lawnmower would still require the help of a human unless it was an intelligent lawnmower in which case it would be able to cut the grass without a human controlling it.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Hokay, concentrate now. IQ=Intelligence Quotient, for the important part of that, Intelligence, you need to have a definitive description, which you don't have, as evidenced by the spectacular lack of AI currently in existence.

There is no need to be so condescending. If you have a point to make then just make it without the attitude.

So the human brain has to be replicated before you think any intelligence can be tested for?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

By your definition, a roomba is AI. Being able to calculate the minimum amount of steps to achieve a desired mathematical goal isn't AI, its a glorified abacus.

You still don't understand what AI means. Here's a definition for you:

Major AI textbooks define artificial intelligence as "the study and design of intelligent agents,"[1] where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximize its chances of success.

Yes, a roomba uses artificial intelligence - it was even invented in MIT's Artificial Intelligence Lab.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Just because you don't understand electronics and microcircuits doesn't mean other people don't. So just because it seems like the workings of arcane spirits to you, don't make it so.

Please, please read what AI is otherwise it is pointless debating this issue.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Heres a good idea, champ, maybe you should get hurrying along and start your google engines. Don't worry, you don't need to sacrifice any chickens to do so. Start out with these dramatic and earth shaking improvements in the IQ test in recent years that have so profoundly reshaped the psychological world.

Then maybe we might have the beginnings of a discussion.

Again, there no need to be so condescending either you want a debate or you want to continue the sneering you seem so proud of. If you want to continue sneering and immaturity then their is no point continuing the debate.

I have made no claim of "dramatic and earth shaking improvements in the IQ test in recent years that have so profoundly reshaped the psychological world" so why would you ask me to prove it?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

And just to complete that paragraph, the bit you left out was: Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use it is no longer considered artificial intelligence

So you think no new techniques are being constantly created? You think AI is not in existence today even though I have shown you it is? You have a misconceived notion of what AI is.

Tar.Aldarion

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

as evidenced by the spectacular lack of AI currently in existence.

What do you think artificial intelligence is? Is a neuron based computer artificial intelligence? Is a genetic algorithm?
Artificial intelligence isn't just something that can pass the turing test.
AI systems are 'already integral to many everyday technologies such as internet search engines, bank software for processing transactions and in medical diagnosis'.

In this article we will try to demonstrate a very simple practical example of artificial Intelligence programming in Delphi using Delphi arrays.
I have chosen a Nepali game named "GATTA TIPNE KHEL" (meaning pebble picking game) for this purpose. We can see small children playing this game in the playground. In this pebble picking game a pile of some pebbles is kept in the ground. One of the two players picks one, two or three pebbles at a time in his turn, leaving the pile for the other player to pick for his alternate turn. In this alternate picking process, the player who picks the last pebble(s) will be the loser and called to be a DOOM in Nepali.

The main logic of the game is to leave the pile of pebbles with 13, 9, 5 or 1 pebble(s) for the opponent to pick. In the program the starting number of pebbles are set to 17, 21, 25, 29 … etc. so that computer could win always if it does not make a mistake. But in the real play computer seems to be gradually learning by correcting mistakes of the previously played games. At last it finds all its mistakes and corrects them to become an unbeatable champion.

Etc. Simple example, it gets far more complex.

Just because you don't understand electronics and microcircuits doesn't mean other people don't. So just because it seems like the workings of arcane spirits to you, don't make it so.

what does this mean? That for there to be artificial intelligence they has to be a 'soul/spark of life' or something? I don't follow what you mean by this and yes I understand circuits.

DanGerMus

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

By your definition, a roomba is AI. Being able to calculate the minimum amount of steps to achieve a desired mathematical goal isn't AI, its a glorified abacus.

Yes it is and so is your brain.

And before you counter.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

just because it seems like the workings of arcane spirits to you, don't make it so.

Mahatma coat

what surprised me on this thread is the way people were willing (mostly) to dismiss IQ tests once someone connected their creation to someone who also supported Eugenics.

Sam, rather than shooting down the axer at every turn how about you give us a clear definition of what AI is in your own words?

Overheal

By your definition, a roomba is AI. Being able to calculate the minimum amount of steps to achieve a desired mathematical goal isn't AI, its a glorified abacus.

can you even get roomba's in europe? the things are stupid as sin. theres nothing 'intelligent' about it. nor is there anything intelligent about the US Military's Firescout UAV helicopter, despite the fact it can operate an entire mission plan with a single click: it still needs that mission plan programmed into it.

When a machine can read a work of literature and give me its personal opinion of it, that will be AI.

SimpleSam06

Mahatma coat wrote: »

what surprised me on this thread is the way people were willing (mostly) to dismiss IQ tests once someone connected their creation to someone who also supported Eugenics.

Actually people are willing to dismiss them because they were twisted from a method of deciding which children needed further education to a set-in-stone personal intelligence level, which they were never intended for.

As for the rest

1. Your brain isn't a glorified abacus. If it was we could just slap together a few million microprocessors and get a fully functioning human, which we demonstrably can't, and not for lack of microprocessors. Don't ask me what the special ingredients are, because I have no idea, and neither does anyone else.

2. The listings of AI applications demonstrate more than anything the abuse of the term "Artificial Intelligence", especially in the context of this discussion, and the dangers of depending on wikipedia for information.

The roomba is a hoover that bounces off the walls, for example. The wikipedia article lists many mechanisms that are not what could be called "AI" by anyone except their creators, who have obviously hijacked the term to give their product a little more zip and a little more value.

For example, factory robots are listed as AI. These are simple machines that repeatedly perform mechanical steps. You can reprogram them to perform other steps. In terms of our understanding of human intelligence, this has nothing to do with AI.

Look at the so-called "artifical neural network" operated by financial institutions. It certainly is a fine name, but does it bear any resemblance whatsoever to a network of neurons? No. It just runs numbers and picks out ones which deviate too far from means and medians. In terms of our understanding of human intelligence, this has nothing to do with AI.

Timesharing, GUIs and the computer mouse (!) were all once considered (or rather named) AI, but to emphasise my point, they have nothing to do with AI. Genetic algorithms seek to replicate the mechanism of natural selection, and once again, in terms of our understanding of human intelligence, they have nothing to do with AI.

Don't make the mistake of believing that any mechanical or mathematical legerdemain that has had an "AI" sticker slapped on its side, is anything to do with true AI, or brings us closer to understanding human intelligence, which is what we are discussing here.

3. Mahatma, if I had a clear definition of intelligence, that would put me pretty far ahead of anyone else on the planet.

Overheal

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Actually people are willing to dismiss them because they were twisted from a method of deciding which children needed further education to a set-in-stone personal intelligence level, which they were never intended for.

I'll be happy to discuss the Education system at another time and place. Can we have cake now?

SimpleSam06

Overheal wrote: »

I'll be happy to discuss the Education system at another time and place. Can we have cake now?

Heh. This whole discussion was spawned from the IQ test, which was developed for the education system in France, as it turns out.

Overheal

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Heh. This whole discussion was spawned from the IQ test, which was developed for the education system in France, as it turns out.

I see. Well they use it in the states too. I dont have a problem with the test in itself (it said I was intelligent, so it cant be all that bad) but some people might take reservation to Intelligent Students being given more opportunity than other students. After my test they moved me to a better school and dragged my siblings along for the ride. But guess what happened when I left the 5th grade? Dropped them like a stone.

SimpleSam06

Overheal wrote: »

I see. Well they use it in the states too.

It was people in the states and American educators that managed to warp it.

Overheal wrote: »

After my test they moved me to a better school and dragged my siblings along for the ride.

Are you serious?

axer

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Actually people are willing to dismiss them because they were twisted from a method of deciding which children needed further education to a set-in-stone personal intelligence level, which they were never intended for.

That does not mean they are useless. There is a positive correlation between grades and IQ. Its not a 1 correlation but it does give an indication of someone's ability to learn. As I said before an IQ test should never be used by itself. No good psychologist would rely on any one test but you want to dismiss any psychologist that performs an IQ as a quack.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

As for the rest

1. Your brain isn't a glorified abacus. If it was we could just slap together a few million microprocessors and get a fully functioning human, which we demonstrably can't, and not for lack of microprocessors. Don't ask me what the special ingredients are, because I have no idea, and neither does anyone else.

2. The listings of AI applications demonstrate more than anything the abuse of the term "Artificial Intelligence", especially in the context of this discussion, and the dangers of depending on wikipedia for information.

The roomba is a hoover that bounces off the walls, for example. The wikipedia article lists many mechanisms that are not what could be called "AI" by anyone except their creators, who have obviously hijacked the term to give their product a little more zip and a little more value.

For example, factory robots are listed as AI. These are simple machines that repeatedly perform mechanical steps. You can reprogram them to perform other steps. In terms of our understanding of human intelligence, this has nothing to do with AI.

Look at the so-called "artifical neural network" operated by financial institutions. It certainly is a fine name, but does it bear any resemblance whatsoever to a network of neurons? No. It just runs numbers and picks out ones which deviate too far from means and medians. In terms of our understanding of human intelligence, this has nothing to do with AI.

Timesharing, GUIs and the computer mouse (!) were all once considered (or rather named) AI, but to emphasise my point, they have nothing to do with AI. Genetic algorithms seek to replicate the mechanism of natural selection, and once again, in terms of our understanding of human intelligence, they have nothing to do with AI.

Don't make the mistake of believing that any mechanical or mathematical legerdemain that has had an "AI" sticker slapped on its side, is anything to do with true AI, or brings us closer to understanding human intelligence, which is what we are discussing here.

You seem to want to redefine AI to suit your needs. See here for the major text books that define it as I have given above.

SimpleSam06

axer wrote: »

That does not mean they are useless.

It does mean they are highly suspect, however, and any use of them should be at best treated as unreliable. Case in point, the article that opened this thread.

axer wrote: »

You seem to want to redefine AI to suit your needs. See here for the major text books that define it as I have given above.

If you have anything to say about the specific points I have raised, feel free to do so. Until such time, I will assume that you forfeit the issue.

axer

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

It does mean they are highly suspect, however, and any use of them should be at best treated as unreliable. Case in point, the article that opened this thread.

They have shown to be stable in their correlations with certain successes in life e.g. grades achieved in education which you would see from the report I linked to from the American Psychological Association.

Just because some people misuse the tests or use them for no good reason does not mean they are unreliable. Until you can produce such evidence to back up the statement that they are unreliable then I can only assume you are again making things up to suit yourself like you have done earlier in this discussion e.g. that the milgram experiment used ECT, that artifiicial intelligence doesn't exist, that psychologists administering IQ tests is some form of quackery, that you think you are right in defining AI as something different to what the experts in the field define it as...

A distinction needs to be made between real IQ tests such as the WAIS-III and those mickey mouse IQ tests that are available via internet etc.

IQ tests should be administered by psychologists in a controlled environment as part of a psychological assessment.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

If you have anything to say about the specific points I have raised, feel free to do so. Until such time, I will assume that you forfeit the issue.

Your whole definition of what artificial intelligence is completely wrong which I have already shown but you refuse to accept that definition given by experts in the field and choose your own. Unless you can prove that your definition is somehow supperior than that of the experts in the field then I think we will have to go with the expert's definition.

Fratton Fred

christ on a bike, you can tell the colleges are closed.:rolleyes:

forget all the acedemic stuff, the really important point is, are the French as thick as two short planks or not?

SimpleSam06

axer wrote: »

making things up to suit yourself like you have done earlier in this discussion e.g. that the milgram experiment used ECT, that artifiicial intelligence doesn't exist, that psychologists administering IQ tests is some form of quackery, that you think you are right in defining AI as something different to what the experts in the field define it as...

So you have nothing to say on the points I raised? I accept your foreiture.

Prof.Badass

I have an I.Q of 1,000,000 which makes me right and you wrong.:D

I read a really good article once in newscientist magazine. READ IT!


http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19125691.300-how-to-be-a-genius.html

Tar.Aldarion

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Actually people are willing to dismiss them because they were twisted from a method of deciding which children needed further education to a set-in-stone personal intelligence level, which they were never intended for.

As for the rest

1. Your brain isn't a glorified abacus. If it was we could just slap together a few million microprocessors and get a fully functioning human, which we demonstrably can't, and not for lack of microprocessors. Don't ask me what the special ingredients are, because I have no idea, and neither does anyone else.

Please prove to me how we are not just an advanced electrochemical computer and how we are different from any computer apart from complexity and components.

2. The listings of AI applications demonstrate more than anything the abuse of the term "Artificial Intelligence", especially in the context of this discussion, and the dangers of depending on wikipedia for information.

No, it seems to be you that is creating some false definition for AI, possible just superstrong AI are AI to you. AI was coined in the 40's I believe with research starting a little later and it is not what you say it is. Where are you getting a definition the creators do not have nor any AI research group?
Please define what you think it is. Why is our research group comprised of dr's in the area and dozens of phd students using the 'wrong' definition?

For example, factory robots are listed as AI. These are simple machines that repeatedly perform mechanical steps. You can reprogram them to perform other steps. In terms of our understanding of human intelligence, this has nothing to do with AI.

Look at the so-called "artifical neural network" operated by financial institutions. It certainly is a fine name, but does it bear any resemblance whatsoever to a network of neurons? No. It just runs numbers and picks out ones which deviate too far from means and medians. In terms of our understanding of human intelligence, this has nothing to do with AI.


Timesharing, GUIs and the computer mouse (!) were all once considered (or rather named) AI, but to emphasise my point, they have nothing to do with AI. Genetic algorithms seek to replicate the mechanism of natural selection, and once again, in terms of our understanding of human intelligence, they have nothing to do with AI.

When these things were first invented they were quite advanced to people, tehy were AI to the people that created the term and to the people of the world, when something becomes commonplace it does not determine what it should be called. Do you think AI is about replicating human intelligence alone? It is nothing of the sort, that is a branch of it.

Don't make the mistake of believing that any mechanical or mathematical legerdemain that has had an "AI" sticker slapped on its side, is anything to do with true AI, or brings us closer to understanding human intelligence, which is what we are discussing here.

You are discussing one small of AI and calling it all of AI.

Q. Isn't AI about simulating human intelligence?

A. Sometimes but not always or even usually. On the one hand, we can learn something about how to make machines solve problems by observing other people or just by observing our own methods. On the other hand, most work in AI involves studying the problems the world presents to intelligence rather than studying people or animals. AI researchers are free to use methods that are not observed in people or that involve much more computing than people can do.

3. Mahatma, if I had a clear definition of intelligence, that would put me pretty far ahead of anyone else on the planet.

Intelligence is the computational part of the ability to achieve goals in the world. Varying kinds and degrees of intelligence occur in people, many animals and some machines.

Q. Isn't there a solid definition of intelligence that doesn't depend on relating it to human intelligence?

A. Not yet. The problem is that we cannot yet characterize in general what kinds of computational procedures we want to call intelligent. We understand some of the mechanisms of intelligence and not others.

more tea vicar

A full scale IQ study comparing all the different types of religion, plus a comparison to agnostics and athiests, would possibly answer some questions.

Don't know if Serbians are all that religious but their war record and narrow minded stupidity seems to bear well with their national IQ, was it 89? Getting on there for the level of Barry George.

Inverseley it is a perfectly rational arguement to conclude in certain cases that someone even over 150 could be commonly referred to as a complete díckhead.

I'd say overall academic results, along with career success, prejudices and anti-social behaviour, basic IQ tests, plus tests in other areas of talent, would give someone an overall idea of how clever someone is, not just IQ alone.

A ham fisted angry bouncer for example, compared to yer average astronaut, it would not take much to guess on occupation alone as to what quality of the old cog lubricant they are using.

SimpleSam06

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

Please prove to me how we are not just an advanced electrochemical computer and how we are different from any computer apart from complexity and components.

Please prove to me how we are any different to tomatoes, apart from complexity and components. Thats like saying, apart from everything, aren't we exactly the same as computers?

Yeesh, determinists.

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

No, it seems to be you that is creating some false definition for AI, possible just superstrong AI are AI to you. AI was coined in the 40's I believe with research starting a little later and it is not what you say it is. Where are you getting a definition the creators do not have nor any AI research group?
.
.
.
tehy were AI to the people that created the term and to the people of the world, when something becomes commonplace it does not determine what it should be called.
.
.
.
etc

Oho, so we are talking about the moving target of what researchers call AI now? There I was thinking we were talking about the definition of intelligence as it pertains to IQ tests, and the fact that there isn't any such definition. One group of researchers make an automated tin can maker, and its AI. Another group make a spam filter, now thats AI.

Tell you what, I'll line up a bunch of dominoes and slap a few entertaining widgets in there to switch on the lights. Now thats AI as well. Looks pretty advanced to me!

I wager it gives those dr's and phds a nice warm feeling to tell people that they are working on "AI", though.

In this discussion, its pretty clear we aren't talking about automation or any one of the many facets of same that people have chosen to call "AI" down through the years, before changing their minds because it wasn't advanced enough any more (and by the way, that is extremely telling as regards the usefulness of the term by researchers in any real sense).

We are talking about general intelligence, for which there is no commonly accepted definition. This I made abundantly clear with each and every point I raised earlier, going through the list of applications developed using "AI".

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

Intelligence is the computational part of the ability to achieve goals in the world.

Ya, good luck with that.

Acid_Violet

darkman2 wrote: »

The Daily Mail extolling the virtues of the intelligence of Britons *shock horror*



http://i35.tinypic.com/2lk8buv.gif Map

IQ, apparently, is not much of an evaluation of one's intelligence.

Next week in the Daily Mail, a special supplement on the biological supremacy of us Brits.