I'd be curious to know what Musk's genius is exemplifed by. I guess it warrants a parsing of the term. I always assumed that genius is found where someone discovers something truly profound in between the confines of what is already known or present. Beethoven, Davinci, Einstein, etc. I am quite familiar with Musk and can't think of anything he's conjured that would lead me to a similar evaluation. He's clever and opportunistic and is willing to break laws that he thinks are stupid but none of that strikes me as genius. And of course he's a political disaster (in every sense of the term political). Mercurial, impulsive, thin skinned, and shambolic. That would all be fine in a genius. Tesla was in love with a pigeon(!?) but he was a genius so... we're not too focused on that.
My undergraduate degree is in history and psychology. I was very interested in testing and enjoyed classes exploring IQ testing, other types of tests, abnormal psychology, etc. What we often refer to as intelligence is a matrix of memory, pattern recognition, verbal dexterity, and simple problem solving. The tests are calibrated based on average responses and conventional thinking. As sophisticated as they are, they are sometimes inaccurate for a variety of reasons - poor axiomatic assumptions, relying on answers without taking into account reasoning processes, cultural and other biases. They are also limited in many ways because they do not take into account things such as non-traditional thinking patterns, emotional intelligence, social adaptability, mental flexibility, or unmeasurable qualities such as curiosity, creativity, or (I don't have a better word, so please forgive the unfortunate connotations associated with it) cunningness. So intelligence, despite it's wide usage and the assumption that we all know what it means, remains a somewhat amorphous term.
I question the assumption that those with advanced higher reasoning functions are better able to self-regulate responses and emotion, but even more so that they are able to use reason to achieve any sort of moral superiority (claim I felt was implied rather than verbalized). I have known people I consider highly intelligent who have been driven (occasionally violently) by emotion. All of the people I have known (admittedly not many) with Downs Syndrome have been universally sweet and kind. I do not believe high intelligence results in not exhibiting violent reaction to emotional triggers. I suspect this is a case of correlation vs causation.
In my experience, people with high intelligence can be both more manipulative and (ironically) more easily manipulated. Authoritarian systems are not created and sustained by people of low intelligence. This is not violent behavior, but springs from the same indifference to the feelings and rights of others, with a large measure of condescension, if not contempt, for those subjugated to the authoritarian whims of the ruling class. On the other hand, high intelligence can lead to an inability or unwillingness to question one's own reasoning and motives. I reluctantly admit that I find it amusing when an intelligent friend falls victim to his own hubris. (Less so when I do.)
I agree that social mores and cultural conditioning play a significant role in what is acceptable behavior. The Overton Window changes over decades. You provided good examples. I do not believe socialization is more or less effective based on increased intelligence. The more intelligent may (generally) question more, but we are all the product of our culture as much as anything else.
(Don't get me started on the myth of cultural evolution.)
Hi Steve. I can't speak for David but I suspect he'd agree that the intention was not to disturb the listeners!
I happen to agree with you entirely that intellect is both highly over indexed in what role it plays in societal wellbeing as well as heavily miscalculated in terms of what factos go into its measurement.
I have never measured my IQ (as far as I can recall) but I have over the years encountered many people who I'm sure would score incredibly well on such tests and yet I found them to be unable to do something as "simple" as grasp ideas contrary to their own.
Elon Musk probably has a fairly high IQ and yet it's hard to think of a better example of someone who so frequently and with so little self awareness makes choices that I think are patiently idiotic. To me it's evident that he has very little control over his emotions and virtually no comprehension of how average humans operate. But he's a "genius" (I keep hearing). I'm not saying this with any disdain, I don't do know him, and am sure he has many redeeming qualities but to me it's obvious that his intellect is being measured in ways that from my perspective is largely irrelevant.
I do think that if we were able to measure intelligence in a more comprehensive and holistic way it could help people recognize where they could use improvement and perhaps pursue some regimen of mental exercise built precisely for that purpose.
There are probably limits to how much change such discreet and bespoke improvements could work but that would be a really interesting field of research, I think.
Does such a framing also disturb you or does this assuage your concerns as to what we were headed towards?
LOL - It does not disturb me. Thank you for your response.
I have been tested. Results were ... gratifying. At one time I valued intellect in others more than any other attribute. My aunt Golda, without realizing it, changed my mind. Now I see people as a basket of attributes and some, such as kindness and generosity, are no less important than intelligence.
Not sure Musk is the best example because I've heard he's on the Autism spectrum (sometimes I think we all are to some extent). Or that may make him a better example. I believe he really is a genius, if flawed.
I agree with your take on AI - it will lead to neither utopia nor apocalypse. It is a tool. A very sophisticated tool. How we develop and use it will be determinative. Could go either way - boon or bane. It's capable of doing things human could not. But that was true of the airplane, the automobile, even the bicycle. Just tools that allow us to do things we couldn't do naturally.
As you point towards, there are missing human components - curiosity, imagination, autonomy, personal agency, personality, emotion, personal growth. I would prefer to refer to the technology as simulated intelligence. It is phenomenally quick, able to parse human speech surprisingly well, and can summarize and draw conclusions. It can drive a car and generate a term paper or graphic image. But everything it does requires a prompt from a human. It's all derivative in every sense of the word.
The user interface can make it feel like a person. But it is the great-grandchild of Microsoft Clippy and the grandchild of the expert systems I studied while working on my second Master's (in Management Information Systems). It is a tool that can be a sword or a plowshare (metaphorically).
Yeah, that's pretty much my take.
I'd be curious to know what Musk's genius is exemplifed by. I guess it warrants a parsing of the term. I always assumed that genius is found where someone discovers something truly profound in between the confines of what is already known or present. Beethoven, Davinci, Einstein, etc. I am quite familiar with Musk and can't think of anything he's conjured that would lead me to a similar evaluation. He's clever and opportunistic and is willing to break laws that he thinks are stupid but none of that strikes me as genius. And of course he's a political disaster (in every sense of the term political). Mercurial, impulsive, thin skinned, and shambolic. That would all be fine in a genius. Tesla was in love with a pigeon(!?) but he was a genius so... we're not too focused on that.
What am I missing?
hmm... can't seem to edit my post to fix the typos. Hopefully you'll not be too distracted by them.
A thought provoking discussion.
I was disturbed by a few things.
My undergraduate degree is in history and psychology. I was very interested in testing and enjoyed classes exploring IQ testing, other types of tests, abnormal psychology, etc. What we often refer to as intelligence is a matrix of memory, pattern recognition, verbal dexterity, and simple problem solving. The tests are calibrated based on average responses and conventional thinking. As sophisticated as they are, they are sometimes inaccurate for a variety of reasons - poor axiomatic assumptions, relying on answers without taking into account reasoning processes, cultural and other biases. They are also limited in many ways because they do not take into account things such as non-traditional thinking patterns, emotional intelligence, social adaptability, mental flexibility, or unmeasurable qualities such as curiosity, creativity, or (I don't have a better word, so please forgive the unfortunate connotations associated with it) cunningness. So intelligence, despite it's wide usage and the assumption that we all know what it means, remains a somewhat amorphous term.
I question the assumption that those with advanced higher reasoning functions are better able to self-regulate responses and emotion, but even more so that they are able to use reason to achieve any sort of moral superiority (claim I felt was implied rather than verbalized). I have known people I consider highly intelligent who have been driven (occasionally violently) by emotion. All of the people I have known (admittedly not many) with Downs Syndrome have been universally sweet and kind. I do not believe high intelligence results in not exhibiting violent reaction to emotional triggers. I suspect this is a case of correlation vs causation.
In my experience, people with high intelligence can be both more manipulative and (ironically) more easily manipulated. Authoritarian systems are not created and sustained by people of low intelligence. This is not violent behavior, but springs from the same indifference to the feelings and rights of others, with a large measure of condescension, if not contempt, for those subjugated to the authoritarian whims of the ruling class. On the other hand, high intelligence can lead to an inability or unwillingness to question one's own reasoning and motives. I reluctantly admit that I find it amusing when an intelligent friend falls victim to his own hubris. (Less so when I do.)
I agree that social mores and cultural conditioning play a significant role in what is acceptable behavior. The Overton Window changes over decades. You provided good examples. I do not believe socialization is more or less effective based on increased intelligence. The more intelligent may (generally) question more, but we are all the product of our culture as much as anything else.
(Don't get me started on the myth of cultural evolution.)
Thought provoking is good. 😁
Hi Steve. I can't speak for David but I suspect he'd agree that the intention was not to disturb the listeners!
I happen to agree with you entirely that intellect is both highly over indexed in what role it plays in societal wellbeing as well as heavily miscalculated in terms of what factos go into its measurement.
I have never measured my IQ (as far as I can recall) but I have over the years encountered many people who I'm sure would score incredibly well on such tests and yet I found them to be unable to do something as "simple" as grasp ideas contrary to their own.
Elon Musk probably has a fairly high IQ and yet it's hard to think of a better example of someone who so frequently and with so little self awareness makes choices that I think are patiently idiotic. To me it's evident that he has very little control over his emotions and virtually no comprehension of how average humans operate. But he's a "genius" (I keep hearing). I'm not saying this with any disdain, I don't do know him, and am sure he has many redeeming qualities but to me it's obvious that his intellect is being measured in ways that from my perspective is largely irrelevant.
I do think that if we were able to measure intelligence in a more comprehensive and holistic way it could help people recognize where they could use improvement and perhaps pursue some regimen of mental exercise built precisely for that purpose.
There are probably limits to how much change such discreet and bespoke improvements could work but that would be a really interesting field of research, I think.
Does such a framing also disturb you or does this assuage your concerns as to what we were headed towards?
LOL - It does not disturb me. Thank you for your response.
I have been tested. Results were ... gratifying. At one time I valued intellect in others more than any other attribute. My aunt Golda, without realizing it, changed my mind. Now I see people as a basket of attributes and some, such as kindness and generosity, are no less important than intelligence.
Not sure Musk is the best example because I've heard he's on the Autism spectrum (sometimes I think we all are to some extent). Or that may make him a better example. I believe he really is a genius, if flawed.
I agree with your take on AI - it will lead to neither utopia nor apocalypse. It is a tool. A very sophisticated tool. How we develop and use it will be determinative. Could go either way - boon or bane. It's capable of doing things human could not. But that was true of the airplane, the automobile, even the bicycle. Just tools that allow us to do things we couldn't do naturally.
As you point towards, there are missing human components - curiosity, imagination, autonomy, personal agency, personality, emotion, personal growth. I would prefer to refer to the technology as simulated intelligence. It is phenomenally quick, able to parse human speech surprisingly well, and can summarize and draw conclusions. It can drive a car and generate a term paper or graphic image. But everything it does requires a prompt from a human. It's all derivative in every sense of the word.
The user interface can make it feel like a person. But it is the great-grandchild of Microsoft Clippy and the grandchild of the expert systems I studied while working on my second Master's (in Management Information Systems). It is a tool that can be a sword or a plowshare (metaphorically).