MOSTLY DONE, but need supporting points and charts.
Here’s a question in return: Has all the “intelligence” we have accumulated for thousands of years, including the “digital information” that continues to double every couple of years, made humanity any better than it once was? What is “better?” Ask two people and get two different answers.
Is the young generation harder working and more disciplined than previous generations, or do they just know more facts about the world? Are kids today more giving, selfless, honest, loyal, financially prudent, and ?
When answering any of these questions, be sure to take the average of the results, not outliers, exceptions, anomalies, and anecdotes, which is what I typically hear when I ask questions about the state of the world. Additionally, “what is possible” should not be confused with “what is happening.”
Perhaps no less important a question: If data doubles every other year, is it actually increasing our intelligence on average?
This brings up the grand question of what is intelligence? Perhaps the word “intelligence” is too broad to tackle, so I will be more specific going forward.
Narrowing down specific types of knowledge might include a wide variety, but generally, as I think of it, it is learning from one’s mistakes or errors. On the surface intelligence might simply be the ability to recognize patterns as seen in IQ tests, and on the other side, “street smarts.”
Science, for example, is the process of discovering of repeating patterns in nature. In contrast to pattern-based logical intelligence, creative intelligence is the mind of an artist; emotional intelligence is the glue of society and families. Perhaps the most important form of “intelligence” is the changing of one’s behavior for the better–learning from your mistakes and making improvements.
Will an explosion of data, and perhaps scientific knowledge help, hurt, decrease suffering, or increase pleasure? Since “knowledge is power,” it is therefore simply a tool, with no inherent morality. Knowledge of gunpowder and atomic bombs did not make the world more moral, and the world’s most infamous criminals and tyrants were surely intelligent by anyone’s standards. The devil himself is probably more intelligent than anyone alive today.
So, if “knowledge” does not necessarily make people better, then ultimately the truly valuable knowledge that we should seek is that knowledge which results in an increase in the love of others, direct or indirect. E.g. Someone inventing a cure to a disease because they want to alleviate suffering, is a worthwhile pursuit of material intelligence as the end goal is based on love. So while many equate our Creator with intelligence and even omnipotence, I tend to think it is a certain type of knowledge that actually matters far more than other types.
If the real goal of increasing material knowledge is actually underpinned by the goal to increase love, then it is useful. It is hard to argue though that it will not be exciting to see AI solve some of the world’s greatest math problems and scientific mysteries of the universe; but I do not see the explosion of scientific intelligence a particularly useful end goal to AI.
Is There Evidence that Human Intelligence is Increasing?
Perhaps some will say that intelligence is increasing. Scientific knowledge appears to increase, predictively compounding with little change over the decades. Clearly knowledge is increasing our computing capabilities while our computing capabilities increase our knowledge. However, the social realms are not so clear. Does surfing the internet for hours on end tend to make people smarter? Let me tell you about some cat memes I have seen over the years.
Besides changes in IQ tests, are there other ways to measure intelligence in society?
If we are to look at a reduction in violence (“war” specifically) as a simple measure of growing collective intelligence, then time may tell, but I do not think war has ended. Many people thought all war had ended before WW1, and even WW2, as they “lived in the modern world” [I think its in Bauman]. We are most likely in a long pause. People at their core have not changed, and the wealth of the modern world holds society together for now.
If the wealth collapses, war will return. With global financial systems and central banks around the world in the world’s largest economic experiment, or Ponzi scheme as they hold down each other’s interest rates to artificially low and even negative rates, the risk levels for collapse simply climb a little more every year. Economically I do not think we are more intelligent, and people are not more financially prudent than they were a generation ago.
Likewise, if you look at politics, the last few hundred years have enabled citizens to be increasingly free to think and choose for themselves in Western democracies, however, it is possible, and in fact likely in my opinion, for a return to kings and tyrants when societies start to fail. Yet another sign, among military, and economic decline, that intelligence would be decreasing.
Ultimately, all forms of “intelligence” depend on the nature of society and its ability to pursue that which is good, but defining “good” is a problem in itself since society can rarely agree on either what good is, or even how to achieve it. For example, most in today’s Western world believe that helping the poor is a good thing, but some believe the solution is to hand them a fish, while others believe it’s better to teach them how to fish.
So these look at systemic intelligence (social, political, and economic), but what about individual intelligence in the “pattern recognition” type, better known as IQ tests?
What Do IQ Tests Show?
This is not to say science is not increasing in many areas, but rather the ability of individuals in the system to think and reason is declining. It is funny to think that recently it has become common for internet users in general to refers to themselves as “degenerates” who sit behind a screen all day trolling memes and trying to get rich off of crypto trading. Perhaps it is a joke…perhaps.
Ultimately, I am not sure why an IQ’s of 200 would be useful anyway as I don’t really have the need to memorize the entire encyclopedia, know what I ate for breakfast 32 years ago, count cards, and do advanced calculus equations in my head. The amount of useless facts that fill my own mind is enough to make anyone wonder about the value of the internet. Remarkably, some of the people with the highest IQ’s in history struggled with social issues, perhaps because there is a real cost to focusing most of our time on mental processes instead of interacting with others. If we had an explosion in the intelligence of love, I would accept that, although I do think love is more like exercise: you just have to do it.
Will AI be Smart Enough to Arrive at the Same Conclusions?
If we are extremely fortunate, then AI will rationally arrive at the same conclusion that I have, that love is really the most important goal of super-intelligence; but, then again, if an AI is under the directive of a person/group, then such truths may be seen as worthless, not seen, or simply ignored by many or most. AI will just magnify each of our own desires–no ultimate truth is needed to accomplish that. It is as if people may continue to learn indefinitely, but never really learn the significant truths.
For example, one of the most phenomenal phenomena and greatest riddles in history is found in comparative mythology, which I have a strong interest in. No one can explain how so many cultures in the world share the same foundational stories or elements of stories. Many have tried for over 100 years, beginning perhaps with Frazier. The publishing of countless anthropological journals, and books, their digitization, the sharing of it, and perhaps even with some machine learning applied, have made it increasingly possible to detect the possible causes of this unexplainable behavior, yet, few people on earth have stopped to notice, and fewer to question, the reality that some stories are shared among 100’s, if not 1000’s of cultures around the world; with the most common one being a “global flood” story, and second, a “creation” myth. If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? more importantly, is anyone listening and does anyone even notice or care? For truth to be useful, it needs to be sought after.
Measuring momentum
It is important to always look at the past and current direction, at least for a short-term prediction. If intelligence is increasing, is love also increasing today? To answer that question, most scientific intelligence, or its child, technology, creates a world where people need each other less as technology brings riches, a specialization of labor, and the ability to be completely independent from each other. Even when you look at the rate of older people living alone, it on one hand, is one of many clues of the growing wealth, and the growing isolation and loss of love.
CHART
Therefore, I do not believe love is increasing overall, on average. While there will always be “exceptions to the rule,” the average is what matters most. If most of society is failing, then does it matter if exceptions exist? Additionally, “illusory superiority” (a social science phenomenon) is that most people think they are above average, but that of course simply cannot be true. It seems likely you and I both have that bias. ____________________
Perhaps people will change to use technology to increase love. More on that here.
mother in law story here?
Could Super-Intelligence Actually Destroy Human Intelligence?
As mentioned previously, it is easy to believe that we are smarter than ever because we have more information, or data, than ever. Not only is there an issue of truth in that information, which may be worsening in many science realms, esp. the softer ones, but the equally large risk is that if AI replaces the need for people to think critically, then the supply of critical thinking may collapse. Demand predicts supply. Is there any evidence that people are getting smarter, in any form of intelligence whether logical or emotional? If this intelligence decline occurs, it may be through a reduction in human population (e.g. fertility rates or destruction) or the general decline of IQ, emotional, social, and other intelligence in each of us; perhaps all of the above. Clearly, social intelligence is declining rapidly as people are increasingly glued to their computers in almost every location (school, work, and play).
When the internet was invented, the question was, would the internet bring us together, or would it divide us? The answer is both of course, but clearly it is the relationships that matter the most, at the familiy and local, or face-to-face, levels, which have declined substantially, and therefore, I argued that it really has divided us to an incredible level.
If intelligence is universal, then why is there so much disagreement, esp in the realm of morality?
E.g. historically, inflicting pain on others, and pleasure on the self were wrong, but today, the pleasure component is increasingly disregarded through a new moral lens which is: that which does not harm others is good, or at least acceptable. So, if values are flexible, what kind of “truth” can we expect to achieve? For decades, post-modernists have used this fact to support their idea that truth is relative, but the reality is, the ability to perceive universal moral truths cannot be measured in a lab.
HumanIT 