CharonY

Or what or how they tested in the first place. The best argument to dismiss such claims is if they appear predominantly or exclusively in video formats. They are not for a serious audience and are design to sell and mislead, not to inform.

IQ has developmental components. It is not something that you can really raise. What you can raise however, is to perform better in certain types of tests, if that is what you mean. Certain types of IQ tests try to reduce that component, but I am doubtful how effective those are.

It's awesome. And even easier if you get my approved protein supplement made from real organic aromats. Maximize your brain at the cost of only one or two kidneys. Like and subscribe!

IQ is a score that is associated with a wide variety factors, many of which not really do not understand. Some factors which have been associated with include high (parental) socioeconomic status, nutrition, a stimulating learning environment, frequent reading etc. So while the question in OP doesn't make a lot of sense, the factors associated with higher IQ can be, in fact enjoyable (good food, reading books, stimulating environment etc). Of course, the correlation is not causation caveat also applies here. Getting better grades is not necessarily associated with IQ. I.e. if you train to improve your grad your IQ may not be impacted (much). And it should also be added that the IQ test was initially developed to test learning deficiency not the other way around. But in a broader sense, learning anything can be enjoyable.

I see. I think it depends a bit on the system, in most capitalist dominated societies I see that folks often see efficiency as the biggest virtue, and thus being efficient (i.e. using least amount of time) to perform a task is what drives them. Spending time to really "get it" is often seen as inefficient. That is an interesting point and I do wonder what impact it has. However, it depends on quite a few factors. If we think about low-income countries, folks who are not able to attend school most likely won't have access to infrastructure allowing them access to AI or other tools. The other element is that in many countries higher educations is not quite as expensive as in the US so the amount AI is going to lessen the barrier is not entirely clear to me. Attitude-wise, I found that on average, students from non-Western countries had more drive than many of their Western counterparts with more interest in building skills. However, and this might again be a discipline thing, a lot if was the desire for hands-on bench experience and use of high-cost analytical gear, which were not available in their home countries. I am sure for folks aiming to be tech entrepreneurs or influencers the situation will be very different. Though from what I have heard, entrepreneurism has been flourishing (perhaps somewhat locally) in those places already, especially as the internet became more accessible. It just mostly escaped Western notice.

You mean actual obesity? Perhaps. Though I think I was just overstretching a metaphor a bit here.

This goes a bit towards what iNow said earlier- it depends on how you use it. If you use prompts to ask for different opinions and their underlying reasoning, it could be beneficial. But there is little incentive for it to used that way. What seems more common is that folks use it to a) strengthen their existing conviction (multiple studies focused on spreading misinformation, perpetuating bias and so on) and b) seem to drive cultural homogenization (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/23727322251406591). From a perspective of watching the mind of young folks developing I think the reason is rather simple. We basically provide a buffet that has equal access to broccoli, brussels sprout and kale and carrot as well as pizza, steak, chocolate etc. Then we tell them to only eat what is good for you. The maybe top 1-5% will take the vegetable and they would likely do well regardless of the system. For the rest however, the bottom is falling out and you can barely rouse from their self-induced pizza coma. Some do realize how poorly they are doing, but they still aren't able to stop due to a mix of anxiety, trained incompetence, peer and performance pressure, etc. The only messaging we have left is really that you should eat more of the metaphorical vegetable (and also show them how to do it). But this is about as effective as say no to drugs. Or combating obesity (without wonder drugs).

I think it is well-established that these tools degrade the specific skills that they replace. The issue with AI is that it is perceived as not confined to any one domain and some use it to offload basic thinking and, apparently communication. I have heard reports that some students even try to use it for in-class interaction. In one article I read, a simple question was something like: "What do you think about that book. Did you like it, or not?" Apparently, half the class gave very similar chat-GPT generated answers.

Absolutely. Right now, I see them as an amplifier. That goes for both,competence and incompetence. In most cases, it is not equivalent to an expert, as the latter will more likely tell you why you are wrong. The carefully curated cases outperforming MDs tend to be edge cases where certain specialized abilities (e.g. pattern recognition, case matching etc.) outperform the average MD in controlled test. That being said, I also vaguely recall that some cases, radiologist underperform when they use AI. This could be down to who and how the tool is being used. I believe worst and best-performing radiologists, benefitted list from AI, suggesting that a certain level of competency is required to use it, but also that the boost has a ceiling. Typically there are some discussions on the economic system that in medieval times were based on agricultural/feudalist system. I would think that at least peripherally the importance of the Silk Road in shaping the ancient/medieval times as an early version of global trade. I also recall some discussion on the economics of pilgrimages and crusades, including building areas of worship and hospitality around often fake relics (i.e. early form of tourism). I guess history teachers do have some leeway to focus on what they want, but the one I had back in the day loved to talk more about the social science of history rather than wars.

Actually that is the part where I see the most convincing evidence for a good use- if they are properly curated and deployed in a specific setting (i.e. not the general chatbot for the masses). The reason is that medical knowledge is a mostly contained system, where MDs basically use established frameworks to make diagnoses. For that, if hallucinations can be kept in check, they are frightening good and outperform MDs in multiple contexts. That might be, but in research the big hurdle is to convince folks to give you money to test your ideas.

Well, I got a bigger mug. That is what I meant with "processing" i.e. generating ideas based on existing knowledge, but in my mind that process is finite as new physical discoveries are needed, in my mind. So that is the part I don't understand. Why provide them with power for them to generate the money to pay humans to do things, including discoveries. Why don't we pay folks right now to work on ideas that they are not getting realized because they don't get funding? I.e. doesn't AI seem to be an unnecessary middleman for that process?

So this is something that I am very curious about. On the software engineering side, this is very scary as it suggests to be capable to fully replace humans. In the broader discussion this is also shown as evidence that it is inevitable that it will surpass humanity's capabilities. What is your take on it? I may be entirely wrong, but sounds to me that the assumption is that software capabilities are virtually endless. I do not have the expertise to dispute that, but intuitively I would think that there is some limit. Even if it combines all the existing knowledge humanity has right now, and by being able to process it in a way no human can would discover things that humans either can't or would need to do it collectively and slowly, it does not follow for me that this expansion is limitless. At some point all the knowledge that can be generated based on existing one would hit some sort of boundary. At minimum it would require hardware (or people) to do additional discoveries to push boundaries further outward, and really that is where we are right now in my field, anyway. We do not have a sparsity of ideas or hypotheses, we lack manpower and funding to explore them (and ironically, the funding is tighter as quite a bit gets diverted to AI related fields). Or at least, that is my perspective, but I am curious how it looks like from other angles. A phrase from Gibson comes to mind. "The future is here but not evenly distributed." I think that would fall under cleaning up the mess once it is out? I am wondering a bit whether the paste is really all out, whether we really are thinking properly about cleaning up, or whether we are still at the process of squeezing really hard.

I get that. But perhaps because of the way I am trained to think about systems, I am always a bit baffled and disappointed that there is a kind of fatalism associated with that. I get what you are saying, it is there and we need to deal with it. But among decision-makers what I see is more akin to, the toothpaste is out, so there is nothing we can do. And then they are surprised that they keep accumulating toothpaste and that it doesn't in fact clean itself. I guess I am seeing a lot of parallels to other, much slower moving issues, like say global warming, where issues were not only predictable, but actually accurately predicted, a menu of actions were laid out, and then mostly ignored until the issue got so bad that folks then resigned to it, with no real game plan to address it meaningfully. Why not create a better tube? What about effective clean-up system. Or perhaps we can even develop improved metaphors? Increasingly I feel that we are using our brains mostly to please our egos and/or get rich, rather than solving real-life problems. Understood. I have no doubt that your industry is changing. From the outside, it reads to me like the industrial revolution on steroids. I am not entirely sure regarding my position, but I always used to be a tech enthusiast, both in private as in professional life, although technological changes in science undergo slightly different rhythms (typically more hardware than software, with quite a few notable exceptions). But with the cracks in systems and society I am seeing (and again, quite a bit I fear is the old man syndrome) I am increasingly drawn to the human side of things and getting increasingly skeptical regarding the impact of tech in our lives. Not in a Luddite sense of way, but I think one of dimming optimism which slowly turns into pessimism. Or as my wife put it, it feels like we are not aiming for Star Trek (next generation that is) but instead for the wost black mirror episodes. The way the system is moving, it feels that humanity plays a big role in diminishing its role. Which weirdly is also echoed by the US government, which makes me question my sanity before I have my sixth coffee.

There also seems to be a gold rush situation where communities are trying to draw in data centers by providing tax benefits and other things. It does seem a bit short-sighted to me, as I suspect it is not clear how much money they are going to ultimately bring to those communities (beyond the investment in building the infrastructure).

I think it is a matter of perspective. I have no doubt that the impact on coding is seismic. But in my corner of the world, it has been (so far) unable to accelerate the type of science that matters to me, but, in balance, has starting to create a host of kids who are increasingly useless. The folks I see and interact with, are those who are on the hype end. I.e. thinking that it can already replace critical thinking. It might come to that, but not yet. And this is where I see the hype. If I was a coder, I probably would already be switching jobs or try to be the guy who they keep until retirement to keep the agent army running. I guess, the point I am trying to make is that in certain areas, AI are cool (e.g. able to replace administrative assistants), and very impactful when things are mostly digital. In other areas, such as higher education, they are clearly disruptive to traditional learning, but so far have little positive impact. Those who do well might be doing better, for the rest the bottom is falling out. It is hard to be overly enthused in that regard. Research as a whole will have quite a bit of an impact, though most notably it is n computer science at some point and social science, where literature work is somewhat dominating. It is getting more reliable in things like cleaning data, which is important in many areas, but not doesn't free up the time you are wasting trying to teach college kids how to operate a book. I have no doubt that things will change, but at least for some of us it doesn't live up to what we have deal with right now.