AI and IQ ????

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Blindman

Valued Senior Member
I was wondering, after recent conversations, how high can IQ go. I’m sure it can go much higher than we have the ability to devise tests for. Assuming there is a real test.

Is there an upper limit to intelligence?
Could something with an IQ of 1,000,000 exist?

Processing speed is important in IQ. After creating an AI system, we could simple increase it’s IQ by increasing the processing speed.
Is there a way to calculate the increase in IQ compared to processing speed?
If I could make my mind twice as fast, including all input and output (sensory systems, muscle, etc..), would my IQ double?

If a system has an IQ of 0 can it still be thought of as an intelligent system?
OR
It is impossible for any system that we describe, classify to have a 0 IQ?

And the last question.

Why is self awareness not part of any IQ test? Seeing that most people think that that is an important part of AI.
 
You should probably do some research on what IQ actually is.

IQ was originally derived as the ratio of mental age to chronological age, multiplied by 100. Therefore, if a 10-year-old had a mental age of 12 (the average mental age of a 12-year-old), the child's IQ was 120.
Click to expand...

I think there was another method, the one that is used in conjunction with measuring other living things intelligence quota's that bases the number of the ratio of brain volume.

I'll try and look for more on that, but if it's the case it would mean that you could have a computer take up a whole building and only have an IQ of 60.

Sources:
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cach...el_measuring.php3+measuring+IQ&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
 
The test would be like a standard IQ test, without age being a factor and the number would be derived from the adult human results. This would lower the IQ of younger people but would get a valid IQ for other things outside humanity. It would also enable use to have results outside 200.

Never trusted the brain volume method. It means nothing.
 
Actually I would differ on that, Brain volume does play a part.
Afterall if you have a Larger volume than most, you brain will have more space to develop where as if you have a small volume you will reach a limit.

Once you've reached a limit you would then only be able to make more ergonomic compression ratio's for any information that is housed or processed through the brain.

I mention this because you have to take into account that as you grow older there is a Bell curve in the sense that your brain volume grows until it reaches maturity, to which it then holds it's own ground for a while at that volume.

Depending on how you have studied during it's growth also depicts how your intelligence can expand and if you reach it's volume limit your brain would have to re-evaluate to be more ergonomic or risk the erroring of processes. (Like loss of memory and tardiness.)

There are conditions that effect those of mental dispositions where the brain volume can shrink (while increasing in mass) this can cause process errors in the sense that the person can't handle stress very well.

Also there is an old adage of "The human being only uses 10% of their brain", the reality is we probably do as the other 90% is used as a "Heat sink" or in more human terms the 90% is not used as to use it would increase heat output considerably (Overheating would cause dehydration and damage).

If this is the case then the larger the volume of the brain the larger that 10% is. Although the ratio is of the Brain volume to Body mass. (which I interpretted wrongly previously)
 
First of all we use 10% of our brains, is a myth. I recall an article which I read sometime ago.. Still trying to find the reference.

I think the first person to say 10%, was Einstein.

As to brain mass to body mass. It does not take into account that the brain extends down the spine and out into the body. There are synapses all the way down the spine and in the body, all of which process information.
Also it would mean that smaller humans would have a larger brain to body mass index than taller humans. Yet taller humans have slightly larger brains and on average have higher IQ scores.
That is why we don’t use the index as an IQ test for humans.

It is used on animals. One of the whales has the largest index of any animal, yet I don’t think it has a higher IQ.

As the brain size increases it has the negative affect of slowing processing speed because information has further to travel. Some birds have very fast brains and can process information up to 10 time faster then humans.

Maybe it should be a count of synapses to neurons index. Not that I know any numbers. I think Ill go off and do some investigating.
.
 
Ref http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html
Ref http://vadim.[url]www.media.mit.edu/MAS862/Project.html[/url]

Number of neurons (adult) = 20,000,000,000 - 50,000,000,000
Number of neurons in cerebral cortex (adult) = about 20,000,000,000
Number of synapses (adult) = 10^14 (2,000-5,000 per neuron)
Click to expand...

Some sites quote counts of neurons up to 100,000,000,000


Ref http://www.findarticles.com/cf_1/m0...rticle.jhtml?term=100+percent+brain+capacity?
Turner & Greenough (1983, 1985) examined this hypothesis directly by calculating the number of synapses per neuron in the cortex of animals housed in enriched environments. They found an increase of about 20% in the number of synapses per neuron in the brains of enriched versus cage-reared animals
Click to expand...

Could the enriched animals have higher IQs??


As for the 10% brain myth. It is definitely a myth.
One of the main sites

http://www.urbanlegends.com/science/10_percent_of_brain.html
 
I would still say a preportion of the brain is about removing heat.

Otherwise our neural pathways would fire up like a superconductor and your brain would burn out lol.
 
Gezz mate...
Always thought that the blood transferred heat from the body to the skin, which would sweet if it was to warm, and dissipate all heat to environment.

Hope your not thinking to much you might explode.
 
Blindman

The blood can remove some heat, but I still think there would be an area to allow heat dispersion. I wouldn't want to wholely rely upon just blood circulation if I was designing something.

Lets say I design a processor, Admittedly I want it to be compact and I know I could flow some liquid through veins to remove some of the heat, but I know that will only effect areas where veins actually reach, some area's will have to have more material to conduct the heat to a place that can be cooled.
 
I think you should go back to your biology books..

The brain needs blood to live, to function, to process information...

Oxygen!!!! etc.... Every part of the brain has close proximity to the blood supply.

Your assumption is totally wrong... Just what would these heat sinks do with the excess heat?? turn it to gas, HOT GAS..
 
Blindman
The heat sink would spread the head across multiple veins, so it's not just forced through one singular one.

(The veins still do the job you describe, but the heat is spread across multiple veins by the tissue between the veins, that acts like a heat sink.)

I mean you mention I should go look at a biology book, but you neglect that one theory for the reason why man walks upright was the shear problem with "heat".

An animal on all fours finds themselves bathed throughout the day by sunlight, where standing upright created less surface area for noonday sun (This is basing on the finding of "Eve", a named presumed missing link around the equator.)

Although a particular Pachyderm (The Elephant) uses it's ears as a way to cool it's blood level, it has to because Elephant's skin isn't such a porous membrane as our own.

So the elephant is left to flap it's ears about in the shade, cooling its blood, and if near water it will submerge itself.
I mention this because again the vein wouldn't cool unless there was a large surface area, which means the tissue between the veins again helps cool.

(Okay I'm a sucker for BBC documentaries)
 
That’s why humans are one of the few species that sweat over most of our bodies.. We use most of our skin to dissipate heat.. It is very effective.
Have you ever noticed that dogs hang their tongues and pant when they are hot? That's their way of keeping cool: the water on their tongues evaporates. Think of how much cooler they would be if they could evaporate water from their entire bodies like humans can!
Click to expand...

I agree that the brain can heat up.

When I have a very heavy duty multiplayer game, in which I’m striving to win at all costs, I’m sweating within minutes, in part from the adrenalin but mostly because I’m using as much of the big muscle in my head as I can.

But I still think you’re wrong. Localized heat in the brain is removed by thousands blood vessels not by just one..
 
Blindman ... you are WRONG this time ... and Stryderunknown , you are not very right either :D ... all that 90% of the brain is not just a heatsink , but it is true that the reason we can't use it is because of overheating ... the human body can normally dissipate only about 10 watts of heat and it uses up to 25 Watts of food(some of this energy doesn't go into heat) although it could burn alot more that that this means that only parts of our brain can work at a given moment ... maybe people with large ears can think faster :D
 
Originally posted by Stryderunknown
You should probably do some research on what IQ actually is.



I think there was another method, the one that is used in conjunction with measuring other living things intelligence quota's that bases the number of the ratio of brain volume.

I'll try and look for more on that, but if it's the case it would mean that you could have a computer take up a whole building and only have an IQ of 60.

Sources:
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cach...el_measuring.php3+measuring+IQ&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Click to expand...

hmmm so as we get older no matter what WE say the iq test says we become dumber and dumber
 
Originally posted by JoojooSpaceape
hmmm so as we get older no matter what WE say the iq test says we become dumber and dumber
Click to expand...

Not quite....

You see, the IQ is calculated based on what a person can do at a specific age in a social average vs a specific sample. So, if you are 40 years old but the wits (or lack of) of a 80 year old, you could have an IQ of 200. Which means as you get older your IQ goes up.

Seriously, the formula needs to be reversed after a specific age. That is when you are 80 and you have the wits of a 40 year old - then it should be 200.

The rock is said to have zero IQ (to humans anyway)
 
Blindman,

Processing speed is important in IQ. After creating an AI system, we could simple increase it’s IQ by increasing the processing speed.
Click to expand...

When a true AI computer is created, its IQ will be infinite. For example, you give it 10 seconds to solve a problem, it will have an IQ of 100. If you give it 100 seconds to solve a problem, it will have an IQ of 140. If you give it a day to solve a problem, it will have an IQ of over 1000.

Human IQ is limited my human memory. For example, if you can only memorize five moves in advance in a chess game, you obviously cant see six moves ahead regardless of your IQ.

Fortunately, an AI computer would not have this memory restriction, since it can store data in RAM or on a hard drive. If you give an AI computer enough time, it can understand anything that is understandable.

Tom
 
Blindman, your brains a funny shape, same shape as mine :D

As for IQ, it would be intelligent, but not as we know it jim.

When man finally builds this thing he will probably give it a humanoid body to carry the sensory cortex and have it connected to a device that only just fits into a large warehouse.
What would adding sensors like radio telescopes, direct connection to things like computers and IR do to the level of intelligence.
An IQ test devised by man wouldn't work, the AI might actually be 'slow' but given the fact that you could keep it going for 1,000 years it would turn out to be something like a 1,000 year old with the IQ of a 300 year old.
What do you think about neuron death and synaptic rewiring, if the AI did not have these functions it might not work, tell it cheese it blue, it would believe it, as well as cheese being red,green yellow etc... failure in logic.
Brain density is also a factor, women have denser brains than men.

I think the upper limit to intelligence is god! ooooohhhh.
self awareness is part of the IQ test, i've never forgotten to write my name on any test.
what about negative IQ results

Prosoothus, if it took me 6 years to solve a problem, whats my IQ?
 
kaduseus,

Prosoothus, if it took me 6 years to solve a problem, whats my IQ?
Click to expand...

If you know how fast a computer performs AI calculations, and you know how much RAM it has, and you know how much time it would take it to solve a problem, you can easily calculate its IQ.

For a human its not that simple. A computer, for example, can store all 6 years of the data of the problem in its RAM, while a human cannot store that amount of data in its short term memory. So a human would have to break a problem down into manageble parts, and the time it would take to solve each part would reflect the IQ of the human, and not the time it would take to solve the entire problem.

So for example, if you had to break your six year problem into one hundred pieces your IQ would be lower than if you hade to break it down into fifty pieces. Also, it could be that you solved your problem in 6 years because you have imagination, which is something that an AI does not.

One more thing, humans get bored while an AI would not. So for example, you might have solved your six year problem in three years if you didn't get bored.

So as you can see, your question can't be answered simply because humans are far more complex than an AI would be.

Tom
 
Good points. And do not forget that IQ needed to solve complex problems or to invent or discover something would be different from IQ needed to do simple stuff like cooking rice or boiling eggs.

The time requirement depends on available knowledgebase too. It took me six months to design an adaptive power management system using satellite networking for China in early eighties where as today, I can do the same for another country in a day and most of the smart engineers in about a week. That is because all the technology were not available then and had to be invented from scratch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top