Neuroscientist Researching Brain Chips To Make People Superintelligent

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Lumenari

It's hard to debate when you don't understand simple truths. You said:

Remembering things and knowing things in no way equates to actual intelligence.

Science disagrees with you.

Simple Memory Test Predicts Intelligence

The key to intelligence may be the ability to juggle multiple thoughts or memories at one time.

Researchers have found that a simple test of working memory capacity strongly predicts a person's performance on a battery of intelligence tests that measure everything from abstract problem-solving to social intelligence.

www.livescience.com...

It's hard to debate with you when you format your posts like this, I want to bold a portion of your quote to put emphasis on it, but I can't because you bold almost everything you say.

You frame your entire argument with a bald assertion, you did this to me as well. You state that the person you are arguing with (Lumenari) "doesn't understand simple truths", or during your argument with me, (which you have evidently abandoned) you said "you just don't understand the tech."

This is awfully disingenuous are you really trying to spark conversation? Doesn't seem like it.

Further you and your source are confusing correlation with causation. Yes it's true that the scientists could predict scores in intelligence tests based on their scores in working memory tests. The same could be true of the opposite, they could use intelligence scores to predict working memory scores, of course because they are correlated. Does that mean they both influence each other?

Maybe, but you cant say for certain one causes the other or vice versa.

a reply to: neoholographic

And so it seems Neoholo. Be we leftists or rightists, we will all be left behind. It would take both sides of the isle to curb the direction that is coming. Even then, this is not simply the future of the US, but rather the whole world. As I do not see the whole world moving to stop this development it seems likely that it is the future, and a closer future than most of us would like to admit.

The only point you make above that seems incorrect was when you said[Eventually,it will be mandatory that every child that's born get a superintelligent chip implanted in their brains.

I respectfully disagree here. It will not become mandatory but will be available to all who can afford it and you can be your last dollar that it will be very expensive. IF you ask me, all the money that the 1% are holding in their vaults will be going for things like that chip for their children and families. That chip and other high tech stuff coming at us faster than we can track.

a reply to: Lumenari

I think we can resolve this with a thought experiment.

Imagine that the OP is right, and they developed a computer on a chip that didn't need energy and didn't require invasive surgery or cables or anything right, were talking science fiction neural augments here. It synced to the cloud and they pre computed machine learning algorithms to detect when your brain perceived letters, words, numbers, advanced mathematical expressions, even general day to day things like balls, it would detect that you were looking at it and compute its diameter, circumference, volume etc, even it's deviance from a perfect sphere, all this crazy stuff it could instantly glean just from the activity of your brain like magic.

The next problem is relating that information to the user. In this hypothetical sci-fi scenario there are of course equally sophisticated and robust vision and sound augmentations to seamlessly integrate all this information in the users senses without it being a nuisance.

This person could of course demolish an IQ test, but would that really translate into increased cognitive ability?

It would be like having the answers to a test provided to you. The person would be good at taking tests, but unable to make any insights other than what he or she would have normally been able to produce from their un-augmented brain.

a reply to: snarfbot

You said:

Further you and your source are confusing correlation with causation. Yes it's true that the scientists could predict scores in intelligence tests based on their scores in working memory tests. The same could be true of the opposite, they could use intelligence scores to predict working memory scores, of course because they are correlated. Does that mean they both influence each other?

It's people that want to debate and actually learn. This post shows you're not one of those people.

How can you have intelligence without memory? It has nothing to do with influencing each other and any high school student knows this.

It doesn't matter how much intelligence you have if you don't have memory. We know though, if you increase memory you can increase intelligence.

For instance, many people can do multiplication in their head. The only reason why they reach a point where they can't do it in their head is because of memory. They get the right answer but they have to write it down because of memory.

If you increase memory, you will increase intelligence because you can hold more information in your head. So now you can be asked what's 175x98 without reaching for the pen and paper because you have increased memory. You merge this increased memory with A.I., you have superintelligence.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: snarfbot

You said:

Further you and your source are confusing correlation with causation. Yes it's true that the scientists could predict scores in intelligence tests based on their scores in working memory tests. The same could be true of the opposite, they could use intelligence scores to predict working memory scores, of course because they are correlated. Does that mean they both influence each other?

It's people that want to debate and actually learn. This post shows you're not one of those people.

How can you have intelligence without memory? It has nothing to do with influencing each other and any high school student knows this.

It doesn't matter how much intelligence you have if you don't have memory. We know though, if you increase memory you can increase intelligence.

For instance, many people can do multiplication in their head. The only reason why they reach a point where they can't do it in their head is because of memory. They get the right answer but they have to write it down because of memory.

If you increase memory, you will increase intelligence because you can hold more information in your head. So now you can be asked what's 175x98 without reaching for the pen and paper because you have increased memory. You merge this increased memory with A.I., you have superintelligence.

Well one that's easy to do in your head anyway, 100x175 = 17500 and then subtract 175 twice or 350, easy math to do in your head.

Further, none of what you said refutes that it was confusing correlation with causation.

Jumping to conclusions like this is totally unscientific, not that I'm shocked as it is sourced from livescience, which is basically buzz feed with science in the title.

a reply to: snarfbot

You keep shooting yourself in the foot. You said:

It would be like having the answers to a test provided to you. The person would be good at taking tests, but unable to make any insights other than what he or she would have normally been able to produce from their un-augmented brain.

Again, you seem to debate without reading posts. Who said the brain wouldn't be augmented by A.I.?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: neoholographic

I guess Ill be one of the ones in a cage eating bananas.

We can get cages next to each other!

I worry about what super intelligence would do to my creativity. My flaws and foolishness feed the creative part of me.
And lets not forget social structures. I need to be a little dumb, how else could I relate to everyone else and make friends.

I think our flaws are some of our best traits.

I once sat down with a younger engineer. One who had made a mistake.

He was devastated. Thought he was going to lose his job.

I sat down with him and explained that "knowledge-wise", we were both equal. But I was in the position I was in because I had spent decades screwing up and learning from my mistakes. I told him as long as he had learned from his mistake, then it was a good thing and a "training exercise".

While lack of mistakes and being perfect is an ideal, learning from mistakes makes a person better.

I see something lacking from any being that is initially perfect with all the data, all the knowledge, but none of the wisdom.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: snarfbot

You keep shooting yourself in the foot. You said:

It would be like having the answers to a test provided to you. The person would be good at taking tests, but unable to make any insights other than what he or she would have normally been able to produce from their un-augmented brain.

Again, you seem to debate without reading posts. Who said the brain wouldn't be augmented by A.I.?

No I'm not, stop asserting me to be doing things thanks.

Like I said, that was a thought experiment, I did my best to describe an ideal science fiction example of what an augmented brain might be like.

If you think that was insufficient give your hypothetical example and how it might work.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: snarfbot

You keep shooting yourself in the foot. You said:

It would be like having the answers to a test provided to you. The person would be good at taking tests, but unable to make any insights other than what he or she would have normally been able to produce from their un-augmented brain.

Again, you seem to debate without reading posts. Who said the brain wouldn't be augmented by A.I.?

This is a very good point.

What I think Snarf is not grasping is that the person with the chip implanted is not just simply 'wired into the cloud' allowing them to instantly 'look stuff up', but furthermore, and much more importantly, computer A.I. is augmenting their base intelligence.

Even IF they naturally didn't understand math, the A.I. does, and will easily allow the person to rattle off complex equations.

It's not JUST about being able to download information.

a reply to: snarfbot

LOL, you keep putting your foot in your mouth. Live science quoted the Authors of 2 studies.

If the results of the study hold for the population at large, "I could predict an individual's overall intellectual ability essentially with 79-percent accuracy if you tell me what their working memory capacity is," said study researcher Steven Luck of the University of California, Davis.

One more:

In a second new study, to be detailed in the journal Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, researchers from the University of Oregon also found a correlation between working memory capacity and intelligence scores in a group of healthy college students.

You don't like Live Science which is a tactic used by those who can't debate the issue, here's more:

Working memory is a better predictor of academic success than IQ

www.psychologytoday.com...

The relationship between working memory and intelligence in children

bold.expert...

Here's the kicker:

Working memory: Is it the new IQ?

Working memory, our ability to process and remember information, is linked to a range of cognitive activities from reasoning tasks to verbal comprehension. There is also extensive evidence of the relationship between working memory and learning outcomes. However, some researchers suggest that working memory is simply a proxy for IQ and does not make a unique contribution to learning outcomes. Here we show that children's working memory skills at 5 years of age was the best predictor of reading, spelling, and math outcomes six years later. IQ, in contrast, accounted for a smaller portion of unique variance to reading and math skills, and was not a significant predictor of spelling performance. Our results demonstrate that working memory is not a proxy for IQ, but rather represents a dissociable cognitive skill with unique links to learning outcomes. Critically, we find that working memory at the start of formal education is a more powerful predictor of subsequent academic success than IQ. This result has important implications for education, particularly with respect to developing intervention and training. It appears that we should target our efforts in developing working memory skills in order to see gains in learning.

www.researchgate.net...

This destroys all of the nonsense you have been spewing.

Also, you haven't provided ONE SHRED of evidence to support anything you have said.

The data that will be integrated into the chip is chosen by someone and that data could be bias and not real. Half of the supposed scientific research out there is crap, designed to promote an agenda or to gain wealth and power. I sift through research a real lot trying to identify parameters to use the information on. The majority of the time the research is not utilized correctly, the interpretation is not correct or the conclusions of the research did not account for other variables known or unknown properly. Most of my research is in food science or pharma, but I did see a lot of Physics and chemistry research being done to chase the almighty buck too.

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: snarfbot

You keep shooting yourself in the foot. You said:

It would be like having the answers to a test provided to you. The person would be good at taking tests, but unable to make any insights other than what he or she would have normally been able to produce from their un-augmented brain.

Again, you seem to debate without reading posts. Who said the brain wouldn't be augmented by A.I.?

This is a very good point.

What I think Snarf is not grasping is that the person with the chip implanted is not just simply 'wired into the cloud' allowing them to instantly 'look stuff up', but furthermore, and much more importantly, computer A.I. is augmenting their base intelligence.

Even IF they naturally didn't understand math, the A.I. does, and will easily allow the person to rattle off complex equations.

It's not JUST about being able to download information.

EXACTLY!!

Like I said, sadly people are debating without presenting any evidence to support their opinion and they also act as if Superintelligent humans will not have their intelligence augmented by A.I.

Some people don't believe doo doo stinks unless you put their noses in it.
It's hard to debate when you don't understand simple truths.
It's people that want to debate and actually learn. This post shows you're not one of those people.
You keep shooting yourself in the foot.
LOL, you keep putting your foot in your mouth.

Stop using this sort of argumentation as a crutch.

None of that refutes that these people are confusing correlation with causation. Even if its the best predictor, it's still just correlated.

Would increasing working memory through some means help people learn, probably. I never contested that though.

In your original argument you claimed that 40,000, and then 80,000 people had similar enough implants already, as though they were able to reuse that technology, deep brain stimulation for tremors and such to give people 200 IQ's.

I said that was false, which it is.

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: snarfbot

You keep shooting yourself in the foot. You said:

It would be like having the answers to a test provided to you. The person would be good at taking tests, but unable to make any insights other than what he or she would have normally been able to produce from their un-augmented brain.

Again, you seem to debate without reading posts. Who said the brain wouldn't be augmented by A.I.?

This is a very good point.

What I think Snarf is not grasping is that the person with the chip implanted is not just simply 'wired into the cloud' allowing them to instantly 'look stuff up', but furthermore, and much more importantly, computer A.I. is augmenting their base intelligence.

Even IF they naturally didn't understand math, the A.I. does, and will easily allow the person to rattle off complex equations.

It's not JUST about being able to download information.

Help me "grasp" this then, describe what you think A.I is, in this context and how one would go about leveraging that to augment their "base intelligence."

a reply to: snarfbot

Did you even bother to read the study or are you just blindly responding? A direct quote from the study.

Here we show that children's working memory skills at 5 years of age was the best predictor of reading, spelling, and math outcomes six years later. IQ, in contrast, accounted for a smaller portion of unique variance to reading and math skills, and was not a significant predictor of spelling performance.

I'm convinced that you didn't read what was posted and you're just blindly posting.

AS I SAID, Intelligence without memory is useless. You said things like vice versa and when it comes to intelligence and memory the same can be true of the opposite. No it can't and if you would read instead of posting without any evidence to support anything you're saying maybe you would learn.

The next thing to divide us those who can afford this tech and the rest of us who will never get to use it.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: neoholographic

Having unlimited access to information in no way equates to actual intelligence.

What you DO with the information is what is important.

Is the chip going to process the information for you as well?

Not really.

So we will end up with functional idiots who are really good at Trivial Pursuit.

Ummm...too true...I get a kick out of people that equate good recall to intelligence...I mean...my computer has the most fabulous memory...but unless I push the right buttons in the right sequence...it really is just a largish paperweight...

Much the same with people that paid really exorbitant prices to read some books in a group setting...claiming the intelligence mantle...because they memorized and regurgitated on command someone else’s creation...

Always gives me a chuckle...that...






YouSir

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: snarfbot

Did you even bother to read the study or are you just blindly responding? A direct quote from the study.

Here we show that children's working memory skills at 5 years of age was the best predictor of reading, spelling, and math outcomes six years later. IQ, in contrast, accounted for a smaller portion of unique variance to reading and math skills, and was not a significant predictor of spelling performance.

I'm convinced that you didn't read what was posted and you're just blindly posting.

AS I SAID, Intelligence without memory is useless. You said things like vice versa and when it comes to intelligence and memory the same can be true of the opposite. No it can't and if you would read instead of posting without any evidence to support anything you're saying maybe you would learn.

So? Does that mean its correlation or causation, in your estimation?

originally posted by: snarfbot

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: snarfbot

Did you even bother to read the study or are you just blindly responding? A direct quote from the study.

Here we show that children's working memory skills at 5 years of age was the best predictor of reading, spelling, and math outcomes six years later. IQ, in contrast, accounted for a smaller portion of unique variance to reading and math skills, and was not a significant predictor of spelling performance.

I'm convinced that you didn't read what was posted and you're just blindly posting.

AS I SAID, Intelligence without memory is useless. You said things like vice versa and when it comes to intelligence and memory the same can be true of the opposite. No it can't and if you would read instead of posting without any evidence to support anything you're saying maybe you would learn.

So? Does that mean its correlation or causation, in your estimation?

First tell me what difference does it make. You haven't provided a shred of scientific evidence to support anything you're saying and I just think you're throwing out terms with no clue as to what you're talking about.

So explain to me exactly what your asking in terms of causation and correlation as it pertains to the studies I've posted.

a reply to: YouSir

I got frustrated with the OP and left because he/she doesn't understand that having access to more information does not in fact make you smarter and didn't feel like outing myself to say why I felt that.

But here we go.. my measured IQ is 168, my reading comprehension is north of 720 words per minute and until the last 10 years or so I had a fully functioning eidetic memory.

I'm a genetic freak... and at about 80% of what the OP is about making people into.

That being said, my adolescence was a horrible time, my early adult years were riddled with horrifying life choices and I didn't even really get it on the ball till my mid 40's.

I have not solved the world's problems, have invented noting of note publicly and my dream is to have everyone leave me the hell alone so I can tend to a garden in peace.

I haven't even gotten my first book out of draft.

So for someone to think that if they only had access to more information that it is going to make you a better person, that someone is quite wrong.

It may make you more "intelligent" in that you can pass a test, but knowledge only gets you so far.

It is the HUMAN part of that which determines if the knowledge is used at all.

An AI in the cloud with an implant connecting people to it will not magically make the world a better place.

In reality it will probably make the world a worse one for those poor souls who will look around after and go....

REALLY?

Just an opinion and what would I know about it, right?