IQ is, at most, a notion of intelligence. Or it is simply a number. Regardless, it has correlations with other things, and that’s what’s interesting. Asking whether it is or is not “intelligence” is merely semantics.

Only if you’re naïve about IQ and worship it like God. Here is wikipedia’s second paragraph on IQ:

Scores from intelligence tests are estimates of intelligence. Unlike, for example, distance and mass, a concrete measure of intelligence cannot be achieved given the abstract nature of the concept of “intelligence”. IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such factors as nutrition, parental socioeconomic status, morbidity and mortality, parental social status, and perinatal environment. While the heritability of IQ has been investigated for nearly a century, there is still debate about the significance of heritability estimates and the mechanisms of inheritance. Current best estimates for heritability range from 40 to 60% of the variance between individuals in IQ being explained by genetics.

None of that stands out to me as particularly controversial, certainly not pseudoscience. Emphasis on second sentence – it’s not a concrete measure of intelligence.

Unless you’re saying other metrics on people are also somehow eugenics like height, weight, or speed, IQ is not eugenics. Eugenics is the belief that one’s genes affects one’s life, and certain genes will lead to a better life in expectation. (This is in fact a true belief, since there are some genes which are known to cause horrible painful short lives.)

IQ is just a measure of how well you do on an IQ test, which is known to correlate (maybe causally, maybe not) with various things such as income.

How do you know there is no way to test how smart or dumb somebody is? Even if IQ tests aren’t to your standard, you can’t be sure there isn’t another test possible.

They didn’t ask about intelligence, they asked about IQ.

For trivial software features like these, definitely not. I think patents start to make sense in the area of really advanced algorithms, like SAT solvers, ML, and so on. So conditional on patents in general making sense, those kinds of patents seem legit to me.

I don’t believe those indie developers have any patents.

Patents should last 10 years instead of 20, and digital patents even less.

I’m not defending AI here, but “people have been wrong about other things in the past” is a completely worthless argument in any circumstance. See: Heuristics that Almost Always Work.

Very effective at translating between different (human) languages. Best if you can find a native speaker to double-check the output. Failing that, reverse translate with a couple different models to verify the meaning is preserved. Even this sometimes fails though – e.g. two words with similar but subtly different definitions might trip you up. For instance, I’m told “the west” refers to different regions in english and japanese, but translating and reverse translating didn’t reveal this error.

Crappy but working code has its uses. Code that might or might not work also has its uses. You should primarily use LLMs in situations where you can accept a high error rate. For instance, in situations where output is quick to validate but would take a long time to produce by hand.

and moms

Okay but this documentation is obviously wrong from the first sentence

The parseInt() function parses a string argument and returns an integer of the specified radix

Integers don’t have radices. It should read:

The parseInt() function parses a string argument representing an integer of the specified radix and returns that integer.

Either way, I still don’t understand the behaviour in the image. nvm, thanks m_f@discuss.online

hay.

Any metroid game.

I said “aight” not good

Well I didn’t say the sky isn’t also down. (Begrudging upvote.)

Amateur. 120 gb myself.

(Seriously though, that’s awesome 👍 )

Because I have never habituated the use of Spotify, I don’t think about not having it.

eat the same foods as you grew up with

That’s unfair. Food has a subjective component, so naturally most people who enjoyed their childhoods will rate the foods of their youth higher than others might.

I’m wondering how you are measuring “common sense” that arrives at “usually false.” Are you ignoring obviously common sense things, like “the sky is up” – since that’s just common sense?