= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MichaelBishop comments on Intelligence enhancement as existential risk mitigation - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (198)
What sort of mechanism would produce a step function? Sounds highly unlikely to me.
Added: I would expect the curve to be smooth.
Miscommunication. My point was only that I expect the function that describes the relationship to be a smooth curve. I wouldn't be too surprised if the relationship between IQ and research productivity is stronger at the high end than in the middle.
Sounds unlikely to me too, but it could explain the phenomenon underlying glm's quote (that above a certain threshold intelligence doesn't make much of a difference in "effectiveness"), assuming that the result is valid (which I would want to know how "effectiveness" was measured).
Your question about how they measured "effectiveness" is right on.
My guess is that marginal benefits to IQ depend on the task, and the IQ range. For tasks of medium difficulty, the marginal benefits of IQ will probably increase as one goes from the low-IQ to average, flatten out and then decrease as one gets to a very high range. But higher IQ allows you to efficiently attempt more much more difficult (and arguably important) tasks.