From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Sep 15 2002 - 11:19:25 MDT
Mitch writes
> I still do not hold that the Bell Curve concept is genetically
> accurate, being that racial attribution is a definitive means
> of intelligence.
This is the mischaracterization that the authors are always
complaining about. Let's take some case where "race" *is*
a definitive means of assessing intelligence: suppose that
you have some cognitive task that must be performed, such
as herding sheep for instance. You may find that as a
general rule, some races (i.e. species, of course) of dogs
have what it takes and some don't. There is no point in
"interviewing" a Pekingese for the job.
But that's not true for human tasks: (1) we systematically
exclude all animals from those occupations requiring
discretion and communication skills, (2) we *do* interview
people of all racial backgrounds. I personally work with
someone of a race that demographically is the least representative
of software engineers, but who is exceedingly capable himself,
and exceedingly intelligent. Racial attribution IS NOT A
DEFINITIVE MEANS OF ASSESSING INTELLIGENCE.
> Moreover, let us imagine what could be a great equalizer of
> intelligence? This would not be a Singularity,
right! A singularity would usher in tremendous *differences*
> but may surely alter our world. That would be the
> implementation of AI (and the PC's that run them)
> to solving personal and technological problems.
> Imagine in 30 years, a person could purchase a computer
> and load a massive database,... these expert systems
> and receive advice. Following the database's advice...,
> one's life improves.
> My [point] is that such an innovation of this technology
> would seem to be a great equalizer, as far as money,
> enjoyment of life, and yes, intelligence.
Yes, if utter equality is your goal. But I'm not sure
that it's a worthwhile goal. I don't especially resent
people who are smarter than I am; on the contrary, they're
a wonderful resource.
Here is a question for you: suppose that you could press
a button and everyone's IQ in the world would double,
*except yours*. How would you feel about that? Would
you do it?
> Now, I would need to ask; are the smartest people among
> the richest, or at least wealthiest?
Nah. Certainly not. There is a good correlation between
brains and wealth, but that's all.
> I am one of those who celebrates the George (son of
> Freeman) Dyson approach to extremely, advanced AI in
> his work, Darwin Among the Machines, where he indicates
> that any super AI advancement will be interconnected,
> in some fashion with humanity, and not separate from it,
> as is often contended on this and other lists.
It could turn out that way. The AI researchers may not
succeed before symbiotics of the sort you propose happen.
(Then later, I submit, true standalone AI would dominate.)
> Conclusion: With a souped-up extra brain attached, that
> Bell Curve will, instead, become a line that is nearly
> asymptotic for us cerebrally challenged folks. ;-)
An extremely smart guy I know once asked a whole room
full of us, "Is there anyone here besides me who feels
incredibly, incredibly stupid?". Since I was the first
to chime in that this is indeed how I feel, my standing
in the room probably went up a notch, when everyone
realized what we were talking about: namely, that
compared to what is possible, we're *all* morons.
(Um, this was more profound back in 1990.)
But sorry. Intelligence will turn out to be like
money---the more that's available, the less equally
distributed it is.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:03 MST