= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
whpearson comments on Is g a measure of ability to absorb information in a non-inductive way? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (20)
That doesn't link to a post contending that g doesn't measure anything. Simply that it is very hard to do heritability studies of it.
Both g as linguistic knowledge absorption and g as nothing would favour Robin's side of the argument I think. An AI that was utterly wonderful at linguistic knowledge absorption would not necessarily be able to make bio-nanotech without doing further experimentation. As society may not have all the information required (I'm thinking catalogues of the hostile bacteria that the nanotech would have to survive).
Morendil probably meant to link to this article instead:
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html
That one was discussed on LW a while ago, though. Sadly, instead of using his extraordinary intellectual powers and knowledge of statistics to clarify these muddled issues, the author instead ended up creating what amounts to a piece of very clever propaganda for his favored side in the controversy.