Superior intelligence isn’t the only trait of an AGI. Our corporations are severly limited by being mazes where a siginificant amount of human effort doesn’t go into achieving the goals of the corporation but in everyone doing what’s best for themselves.
An AGI that replaces all the management of a corporation has the ability to align the efforts of the corporation much better.
This inefficiency is part of the reason why Karlsson found that a job that doesn’t need to any skill and can be done in two days with a friend costs 20 days of wages.
In a world with internally aligned corporations that analyse all business niches and make profits to serve them, you wouldn’t see such opportunities.
But power seems to be very unrelated to intelligence.
I don’t think it’s an accident that Ben Bernake and Bill Gates are on top of the intelligence scale and Bill Gates was for a long time the richest men and Ben Bernake had immense power as FED chairman (and while we don’t have test information abotu Bernake’s successor given that she was called “small lady with a large IQ”, she’s likely also smart).
The fact that people make a point to note Yanet’s IQ suggests that it’s unusual given the selection pool.
While years of social conditioning tell me otherwise, I remain rather unconvinced that intelligence is incredibly useful for, well, anything. With small and pointless exceptions such as chess, GO or writing articles about the pointlessness of intelligence.
Intelligence (as measured by IQ) seems to be much less central to success at Go then it seems to be central to become Fed Chairmen.
Stereotypes suggest that Go skill would correlate more with intelligence but that’s not what you see when you look at the actual people.
In Chess even so Garry Kasparov qualifies for Mensa he’s far off the level of Gates or Bernake.
If you want to move past individuals, the economic success of Jewish people with an average higher IQ happened even in enviroments where they face strong discrimination.
The question you should be asking is not if IQ is correlated with success, but if it’s correlated with success in spite of other traits. I.e. being taller than your siblings, facial symmetry and having few coloured spots on your skin are also correlated with success… but they are not direct markers, they simply point to some underlying “causes” (“good” embryonal env, which correlates with being born into wealth/safety/etc | lack of cellular damage and/or ability to repair said damage | proper nutrition growing up… etc).
Also, my claim is not that humans don’t fetishize or value intelligence, my claim is that this fetish specifically pretains to “intelligence of people that are similar enough to me”.
I think Gates/Bernake being a standard deviation higher in IQ then Kasparov does suggest that IQ is more important for what they did then it is for chess. The ability to spend a significant amount of time training for Chess also comes with a privileged background.
Your model suggests that Bill Gates and Bernake should be taller then average. Ben Bernanke is 5-foot 8-inch while Gates is 5′ 10″. As far as Yanet goes she’s called “small lady with a large IQ” for a reason. Rumors have it that she wasn’t reappointed by Trump because Trump thought that she was too small.
We don’t have testscores for Bezos was smarter than his childhood enviroment given that he was valedictorian and with 5′ 7″ he’s smaller then his brother.
How do you think your model that predict those people to be talled should be updated based on the prediction of them being tall not representating reality?
How do you explain that being born into wealth correlates with IQ? I think the best explanation is that high IQ parents are more likely to be economically successful. All the points to being taller better facial symmetry don’t explain Jewish wealth which is best explained by intelligence being economically useful. If you don’t believe that explanation what’s your alternative?
Also, my claim is not that humans don’t fetishize or value intelligence, my claim is that this fetish specifically pretains to “intelligence of people that are similar enough to me”.
I think the thing you call fetishing intelligence is fetishing things like being good at chess or go where IQ isn’t very central while at the same time ignoring that it’s central for other domains. Thinking of Go/Chess as high intelligence activities is part of a certain stereotype and that stereotype is not helpful but it’s distinct from IQ being useful.
Superior intelligence isn’t the only trait of an AGI. Our corporations are severly limited by being mazes where a siginificant amount of human effort doesn’t go into achieving the goals of the corporation but in everyone doing what’s best for themselves.
An AGI that replaces all the management of a corporation has the ability to align the efforts of the corporation much better.
This inefficiency is part of the reason why Karlsson found that a job that doesn’t need to any skill and can be done in two days with a friend costs 20 days of wages.
In a world with internally aligned corporations that analyse all business niches and make profits to serve them, you wouldn’t see such opportunities.
I don’t think it’s an accident that Ben Bernake and Bill Gates are on top of the intelligence scale and Bill Gates was for a long time the richest men and Ben Bernake had immense power as FED chairman (and while we don’t have test information abotu Bernake’s successor given that she was called “small lady with a large IQ”, she’s likely also smart).
The fact that people make a point to note Yanet’s IQ suggests that it’s unusual given the selection pool.
Intelligence (as measured by IQ) seems to be much less central to success at Go then it seems to be central to become Fed Chairmen.
Stereotypes suggest that Go skill would correlate more with intelligence but that’s not what you see when you look at the actual people.
In Chess even so Garry Kasparov qualifies for Mensa he’s far off the level of Gates or Bernake.
If you want to move past individuals, the economic success of Jewish people with an average higher IQ happened even in enviroments where they face strong discrimination.
The question you should be asking is not if IQ is correlated with success, but if it’s correlated with success in spite of other traits. I.e. being taller than your siblings, facial symmetry and having few coloured spots on your skin are also correlated with success… but they are not direct markers, they simply point to some underlying “causes” (“good” embryonal env, which correlates with being born into wealth/safety/etc | lack of cellular damage and/or ability to repair said damage | proper nutrition growing up… etc).
Also, my claim is not that humans don’t fetishize or value intelligence, my claim is that this fetish specifically pretains to “intelligence of people that are similar enough to me”.
I think Gates/Bernake being a standard deviation higher in IQ then Kasparov does suggest that IQ is more important for what they did then it is for chess. The ability to spend a significant amount of time training for Chess also comes with a privileged background.
Your model suggests that Bill Gates and Bernake should be taller then average. Ben Bernanke is 5-foot 8-inch while Gates is 5′ 10″. As far as Yanet goes she’s called “small lady with a large IQ” for a reason. Rumors have it that she wasn’t reappointed by Trump because Trump thought that she was too small.
We don’t have testscores for Bezos was smarter than his childhood enviroment given that he was valedictorian and with 5′ 7″ he’s smaller then his brother.
How do you think your model that predict those people to be talled should be updated based on the prediction of them being tall not representating reality?
How do you explain that being born into wealth correlates with IQ? I think the best explanation is that high IQ parents are more likely to be economically successful. All the points to being taller better facial symmetry don’t explain Jewish wealth which is best explained by intelligence being economically useful. If you don’t believe that explanation what’s your alternative?
I think the thing you call fetishing intelligence is fetishing things like being good at chess or go where IQ isn’t very central while at the same time ignoring that it’s central for other domains. Thinking of Go/Chess as high intelligence activities is part of a certain stereotype and that stereotype is not helpful but it’s distinct from IQ being useful.