undefined | Better HN

0 pointsFredPret1y ago0 comments

A 200 IQ is not possible at current population levels.

It’s a statistical measure comparing the test taker against the average, much like percentiles.

At a certain IQ score, somewhere in the 170’s I think, the expected number of individuals with that IQ is about 1.

If we had absolute measures of intelligence (that would be a breakthrough for the ages), then we could say “A is twice as smart as B” and award A twice the points of B. In such a system, the sky is the limit for the number of points.

EDIT: If/when we build a human-level AI, perhaps we could use the number of transistors / artificial neurons involved as a proxy for an absolute measure of how difficult it is to answer some problems. This would be imperfect but better than nothing.

0 comments

naveen991y ago

It’s close though. Iq sd is 15. 200 is about 6.7 sd above mean. Odds of being 6.5 standard deviations away is 1 in 12 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rul...

vitus1y ago

Don't forget you also have to divide by two (so, 1 in 24 billion) if you only want to consider the upper end of the range, since that number is essentially "fraction of the population that doesn't fall within mean +/- 6.5 stdev".

FredPretOP1y ago

Sure, but we can’t say someone has a 1-in-12B intelligence when we only have 8B (or whatever) people. We can only go as high as 1-in-<current_pop>

n4r91y ago

That sounds wrong. Perhaps you're confusing frequency with likelihood?

IQ is standardised so that population scores on a standard test have a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. It's possible to obtain this with as fewer than 100 people, distributed as:

* One "genius" who scores 200

* One "dumbass" who scores 0

* 87 "everyman" who score 100.

The mean here is clearly 100, and the variance is sqrt(20000/89) = 14.99.

Of course this is very contrived and doesn't look much like a Bell curve in the first place. But with say a million people it wouldn't take much to come up with a more realistic looking example.

dleeftink1y ago

Matter of perspective; one in the 100~150 billion sapiens (or more) that have gone before and the rates go up. It's also possible rates are underestimated, as we have only tested a relatively small sample compared to N=all

1 more reply

willvarfar1y ago

we can compare their intelligence to those who have previously lived?

A quick googling gives estimates of ~117B humans have ever been born.

So if you were the cleverest person on the planet, ever, you'd have 1-in-117B intelligence?

1 more reply

entropicdrifter1y ago

>EDIT: If/when we build a human-level AI, perhaps we could use the number of transistors / artificial neurons involved as a proxy for an absolute measure of how difficult it is to answer some problems. This would be imperfect but better than nothing.

Wouldn't that be roughly equivalent to equating brain size/volume to intelligence? I know there's a decent correlation between intelligence and head-size, but it's not that consistent. Some brains just work better for their size.

FredPretOP1y ago

That’s why it’ll be a proxy that will get better over time as AI architectures converge towards optimality.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsFredPret1y ago0 comments

A 200 IQ is not possible at current population levels.

It’s a statistical measure comparing the test taker against the average, much like percentiles.

At a certain IQ score, somewhere in the 170’s I think, the expected number of individuals with that IQ is about 1.

0 comments

naveen991y ago

It’s close though. Iq sd is 15. 200 is about 6.7 sd above mean. Odds of being 6.5 standard deviations away is 1 in 12 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rul...

vitus1y ago

FredPretOP1y ago

Sure, but we can’t say someone has a 1-in-12B intelligence when we only have 8B (or whatever) people. We can only go as high as 1-in-<current_pop>

n4r91y ago

That sounds wrong. Perhaps you're confusing frequency with likelihood?

IQ is standardised so that population scores on a standard test have a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. It's possible to obtain this with as fewer than 100 people, distributed as:

* One "genius" who scores 200

* One "dumbass" who scores 0

* 87 "everyman" who score 100.

The mean here is clearly 100, and the variance is sqrt(20000/89) = 14.99.

Of course this is very contrived and doesn't look much like a Bell curve in the first place. But with say a million people it wouldn't take much to come up with a more realistic looking example.

dleeftink1y ago

1 more reply

willvarfar1y ago

we can compare their intelligence to those who have previously lived?

A quick googling gives estimates of ~117B humans have ever been born.

So if you were the cleverest person on the planet, ever, you'd have 1-in-117B intelligence?

1 more reply

entropicdrifter1y ago

FredPretOP1y ago

That’s why it’ll be a proxy that will get better over time as AI architectures converge towards optimality.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse