Hindemburg Melão Jr. and Tor Arne Jørgensen on A.I., I.Q., and the Future: Founder, Sigma Society; 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (1)
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/06/15
Abstract
Hindemburg Melão Jr. founded the Sigma Society and the Sigma Test. Tor Arne Jørgensen is a member of 50+ high-I.Q. societies. They discuss: high-level IQ; Elon Musk; a multiplanetary race; NASA and SpaceX; the next 100 years; AI; the future prospects of man; genius; and the basis of AI.
Keywords: A.I., Elon Musk, Hindemburg Melão Jr., I.Q., Leonardo da Vinci, NASA, Sigma Society, Sigma Test, SpaceX, Tor Arne Jørgensen.
Hindemburg Melão Jr. and Tor Arne Jørgensen on A.I., I.Q., and the Future: Founder, Sigma Society; 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (1)
*Please see the references, footnotes, and citations, after the interview, respectively.*
*Updated June 17, 2022.*
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Can high-level IQ tests be legitimized to the same extent as professional supervised tests?
Hindemburg Melão Jr.[1]*: I think this question was partially answered in the preamble to the interview, but there are a few details I would like to add.
International Mathematical Olympiads use relatively primitive methods of assessment compared to psychometric methods, but the content of the questions is sufficiently difficult for the levels at which they are intended to assess. The types of problems are not the same as what a mathematician would need to solve, but they do share some necessary cognitive processes. Under these conditions, scores proved to be good predictors of intellectual production in the future, including for important awards such as the Fields Medal. The charts below summarize this situation:
Source: https://ramanujan.xyz/read-our-imo-research/
Psychometric tests use sophisticated standardization methods, much superior to those used in the IMO, and have good construct validity up to 2 standard deviations above the mean, and an adequate level of difficulty up to 2 standard deviations above the mean. But for higher levels the construct validity and the difficulty level are not adequate. As a result, Terman’s studies showed good predictions for academic and professional/financial production, but failed at the highest levels, even showing a negative correlation.
This suggests that while the quality of standardization is important, it is less important than the quality of items in terms of “appropriate difficulty” and “appropriate construct validity” at the levels at which it is intended to be measured.
So for the 70 to 130 range, clinical tests are actually better than hrIQts because they use larger samples and the standardization methods are generally more sophisticated. However, for scores above 130, hrIQts better meet the questions about level of difficulty and construct validity, which are apparently more important criteria for predicting remarkable results in real-world problems.
In addition, some hrIQts are standardized with higher quality than clinical tests, although this is not the most important issue, it can be a differentiator.
Tor Arne Jørgensen[2],[3]*: Not in the state of being accepted as reliable as the test base in most cases does not reach what is viewed as acceptable. Most High range tests vary from low 20 attempts to high 300-400 attempts in most cases per test, whereby the professional test is based on 6000-20000 attempts per test. Some of course have a larger test base but not many, so the outcome will not be nuanced enough to be validated as real. Furthermore, it is not a team of professional test developers with a psychological background who develop these high range tests, they are thus of debatable value to estimate.
It should be added that even amateur designed logic tests, hit quite close to the certified tests in most cases in my experience, where deviations of around 2-3 IQ points have been found regarding my own tests, and it must be said that I am not a certified phycologist by any means, but from the 400 attempts I have had on my own high range tests, then the results is quite clear as norm go…
Jacobsen: Is Elon Musk the Leonardo Da Vinci of today?
Melão Jr.: Musk is very smart and very creative, his IQ is somewhere close to 155 (σ =16) and his creativity level is perhaps equivalent to something like 180.
In Leonardo’s case, if his IQ were put on the same scale, it would be close to 250 to 260 (σ =16, T). Obviously this is only possible because the true distribution of the scores is not normal, otherwise in a historical population of 100 billion the maximum possible rarity would be 10^-11, corresponding to 207.3 (σ =16). To better understand how the determination of scores should be done, I suggest reading this article: https://www.sigmasociety.net/escalasqi
Some people are especially skilled at figuring out what questions need to be asked to solve important problems. Other people are especially skilled at finding answers. Leonardo was exceptional at both, asking the “right” questions and finding efficient and creative answers, perhaps 9 to 10 standard deviations above the mean (in a dense-tailed distribution, as noted above). Musk is very good at asking important questions (perhaps 5 standard deviations above average), but (for now) he needs his army of geniuses to find the answers Leonardo found on his own. Musk is also very good at solving problems (perhaps 3 to 4 standard deviations above average) and has a huge net worth, which boosts his production by outsourcing the work of many others.
Musk’s financial resources, he would probably have built working helicopters in the 15th century, but with animal traction (it would be unlikely to invent an engine at that stage in which the Technology was), and many other things even more extraordinary than what he did, actually did.
On the other hand, in a short time Musk “will be able” to implant computer prostheses in the brain and will surpass Leonardo. It might, but it probably won’t anytime soon, because it won’t be safe at first, it will need to be tested on monkeys, then human volunteers, etc.
Jørgensen: Comparing these two people is not easy by any means as they on both parts are quite unique in any sense, whereas they are driven by a regiment of absolutes. Your inherent qualities are what have helped to shape their outcome into the history books. Brilliant to be woad, where qualities of both the creative and logic-based intellect are above the norm as to the general population. To look at these two individuals as fortified settlers, paving the way forward for innovation and development through quantum leaps for humanity in all its rejuvenation of renewal. Intellectually, these two guys are not so different in the bare nature and their continuous strives towards future innovations, one more hopelessly lost and barred by his contemporaries regards to Leonardo Da Vinci, even more so than the later Elon Musk. Leonardo’s, in some way desperate attempt at fame and fortune trapped by the ancients’ dogmas and frigates in his heyday.
Leonardo Da Vinci an intellect of contemporary currents, intentionally shaped for the individual’s right to be recognized as real and genuine. A man whose brilliance is still increasing in his hardening, is to be regarded as Elon Musk’s superior as to both intellect and creative output. Elon Musk is brilliant in all his glory, but still he is not to be painted with the same statuettes as Leonardo. That said, only time will tell who will be viewed with the greatest influence of these two exemplified giants perceived by utopian framework conditions by and for the artistic innovation and common enrichment of utilitarianism.
Jacobsen: We can certainly see ourselves as a multiplanetary race in the near or distant future, and is that something we want to be then?
Melão Jr.: The technology necessary for terraforming planets or other astronomical objects should be achieved in a short time, perhaps it is already available, although it has not yet been applied. But the time it takes to make another star habitable depends a lot on how big the differences between that star are compared to Earth, in addition to the size of the star, the star’s evolution rate, etc. We still don’t know whether the most promising venture would be terraforming Venus, Mars or the Moon. I would bet on the Moon for the short term and Venus for the long term, but there is still not enough data to decide. Alternatives like Europa, Titan or Enceladus are very cold, perhaps this is more difficult to resolve.
No Solar System object, other than Earth, appears to be sufficiently suited for the development and/or maintenance of complex life as they are now. Perhaps extremophiles like tardigraphs can live on Mars, without the need for major changes to the planet. However, to colonize Mars with humans it would be necessary to solve some very difficult problems:
- Mars’ magnetic field is very tenuous, insufficient to deflect lethal radiation. To increase the intensity of this magnetic field naturally and without needing a continuous supply that consumes energy, Mars would need a rotating metallic core of a certain size. It would be an incredibly difficult engineering process to change that and far removed from our current technology.
- The atmosphere of Mars has 0.6% of the pressure of the Earth’s atmosphere and is composed of 95% CO 2, with only 2.8% nitrogen and 0.2% oxygen. Earth’s atmospheric pressure at the top of Mount Everest is about 30% of the pressure at sea level, and breathing is already very difficult at the top of Everest, with high risks of nose and ear bleeds. So it would need to increase 100 to 200 times the total mass of gases on Mars and increase 10,000 to 15,000 times the mass of oxygen. How to do this? Musk commented on the possibility of generating more gases in the atmosphere of Mars through nuclear explosions, a completely speculative hunch, to “test and see what happens”. I think it’s a reasonable guess, despite not being supported by anything concrete. Perhaps an interesting alternative to this strategy is to develop genetically edited plants to transform soil nutrients into oxygen. Simply changing CO 2 from the atmosphere to O 2 would not solve it because there is not enough CO It would need to increase the atmospheric mass a lot, in addition to the change in composition, and even then it would be complicated because as the gravitational acceleration on the surface of Mars is 0.37 times that of Earth, so if the density of the air were equal to that of Earth, the pressure would be 0.37, just slightly higher than the pressure at the top of Everest. If I increased the pressure 2.5 to 3 times to make it equal to Earth’s, then I would need to investigate the health effects of having 3x the air density.
There are several other negatives, but less serious than the first two. Mars’ orbital eccentricity is 0.0934, while Earth’s is 0.0167. As a result, the range of thermal variation on Mars is vastly greater. On Earth, the seasons of the year are predominantly determined by the inclination of the axis of rotation, but in the case of Mars the predominant factor would be the variation in the distance from the Sun, which would also be added to the variations related to the inclination of the axis. It would not be a prohibitive range of variation for life, but it would create serious problems for humans. The photos below show the variation in the size of the South polar ice cap in just 2 days. Nothing similar happens in Antarctica (not to the same extent). This sublimated ice cap material is added to the atmosphere, substantially increasing the average total pressure. Weather stations on Mars would be much more marked than on Earth, not only with much greater temperature variations, but also with changes in CO 2 concentrations in the air, relative humidity, etc. And it would be useless to try to “fix” this in the ice caps, because it is a process related to the temperature variations inherent to orbital motion and axial tilt.
Despite these difficult points to resolve, Mars has several positives: the length of the day is very similar to Earth’s day, so it would not require much adaptation. In the cases of the Moon and particularly Venus, day length could be a big problem. The fact that Mars’ albedo is much lower than Earth’s contributes a little to its not being so cold, even though it is 50% farther from the Sun than Earth.
Venus has a very tenuous magnetosphere as well, but this is largely due to its very low rotation speed. Accelerating its rotation would be less difficult than introducing a giant metallic core to Mars, but it would still be immeasurably difficult and would require a much higher level of propulsive energy production than we currently have. When such technology is available, connecting suitable thrusters and with sufficient fuel, this process of accelerating rotation could take a few thousand years. Solar energy itself could serve as a complementary fuel source for the thrusters. At the same time, it would be possible to drain or condense part of the atmosphere. The components of the atmosphere are not very “friendly”, but H 2 SO 4 includes H 2 and O 4, which can produce water, oxygen and ozone. The amount of nitrogen is 3 times greater than on Earth, so I would just need to figure out how to produce the proper chemical reactions. Perhaps in 10,000 to 100,000 years it will be possible to make Venus habitable, with an atmosphere similar to ours, a 24-hour day, a sufficient magnetic field. The current albedo of Venus is 0.76, while that of Earth is 0.39, so although Venus is closer to the Sun, as it absorbs less light, its temperature could be maintained at a level similar to that of Earth, at least in the regions of higher latitudes. When the atmosphere is changed, the albedo must also change, but it must be possible to reasonably control this parameter in order to leave the appropriate temperature. The length of the day time doesn’t seem to me to be an issue in itself, but modifying this would be useful for the magnetic capo reason. In the case of Mars, whose mass is 1/8 that of Venus, it might also be possible to shorten the day from 24 hours to 6 minutes, in which case perhaps Mars’ magnetic field would also reach a level suitable for deflecting harmful radiation, but it would produce many other problems, because the flattening of the planet caused by the pseudo-centrifugal force would be 250 times greater, that is, the planet would be elongated more than an egg, changing several fundamental parameters at the equator and poles, and it may not even be possible to maintain balance hydrostatic effect of an object with these dynamic characteristics, the lithosphere might rupture, or melt due to the heating caused by friction with the magma of the lower layer, the Coriolis effect would be very intense and there would be hurricanes all the time in high latitudes, not to mention the difficulty that it would be to live on a planet where the sun rises and if it could every 3 minutes, the tidal effects would also have a very short cycle etc. So, although the mass of Venus is much greater than that of Mars, it seems more plausible to me to reduce a rotation from 243 days to 1 day, as in Venus, than to reduce a rotation from 1 day to 0.004 days, as in Mars. Both would likely increase the magnetic field by increasing the rotation speed of the core, but the side effects on Mars would be catastrophic.
Anyway, these terraforming processes I believe will only serve as “experiments”, because there will be no advantage in moving to Venus, Moon or Mars. It will be important to use these astronomical objects as “laboratories” to learn how to terraform other astronomical objects, as there will be many unforeseen issues that will need to be resolved during this process, and the first attempts will be very likely to fail. Thus, for a few million years there will be an opportunity for learning, correcting errors, etc. and then apply the process to terraform some exoplanet to meet the real need to leave the Solar System before the Sun leaves the main sequence. If you were to learn how to do it only when necessary to switch to another system, and failed in the attempt, it would be disastrous. That’s why it’s important to test on neighboring planets first, although the objective is not to occupy them, per se. Although the sun is predicted to take 5 billion years to run out of its hydrogen fuel, along this process there will be several major changes in a few hundred million years, both in size and in temperature and luminosity. A 10% increase or decrease in brightness would be a very serious problem. The current model of evolution for G2-V class astronomical objects like the Sun predicts that in 1 billion years the Sun’s luminosity will be about 9% greater than today, so we won’t have several billion years to move into a star system. more stable, maybe around a red dwarf or something. It’s also debatable whether a red dwarf would be an option, because if our main energy source is starlight, with a Dyson sphere or something, maybe a red dwarf wouldn’t be able to meet our energy demand. Another problem is that the current model of evolution is based on many hypotheses that may be wrong or inaccurate. Recently, the Sun’s metallicity was found to be about 43% higher than previously thought, which has several implications for the pace of evolution and how long it will take before we need to move due to the overheating of our region. If there are other parameters revised, the 1 billion-year timeframe can be reduced to a few hundred million (or extended, if we’re lucky).
Perhaps the planets and other astronomical objects within the Solar System are used for tourism, or for the escape of some “privileged” people in case a war renders Earth uninhabitable, although it is probably less difficult to “fix” the Earth after a nuclear war than to make another planet welcoming enough. Even after a devastating nuclear war, Earth would hardly be as inhospitable as Mars, for example. If in the next decades or centuries weapons even more destructive than the current ones emerge, and if they are used, then perhaps they will be able to make Earth more uninhabitable than other planets, in which case migration would be an alternative for some. It is also important to consider that future inhabitants of the Earth may have different needs than the current ones, perhaps the brains will be preserved, but the rest of the body may be replaced by something more versatile, which can withstand higher and lower temperatures and other more hostile conditions, keeping the brain thermally insulated so that it does not suffer damage, with adequate protections also for radiation, etc. Or simply swapping the brain for a homologous structure that is more robust to adverse weather conditions.
It is also likely that “humans” will not move to just one planet, but to several, as the terraforming tests will not work every time, so we will need a reasonable sample of trials to have a good chance that at least some tests “work”. And once the new planets are available for occupation, they are likely to be occupied. It is also possible that genetic and prosthetic changes are made to make humans, animals and plants adapted to other astronomical objects, rather than just altering the astronomical objects to adapt to us. This should make the whole process faster and promote a better harmonization and integration of beings with the planets on which they will live, since some planetary and stellar parameters will probably be very difficult to adjust, such as the amount of UVB rays emitted by the star, necessary for the synthesis of vitamin D, which is currently important for our immune system, but if we happen to inhabit a planet around a red dwarf, the UVB emission will be much lower. In short, it is a question that could be written in a book about it, because it is very complex. But this is an outline of some possibilities.
Jørgensen: The future as a multiplanetary race is for me an inevitable scenario that one cannot get away from.
But it must be said to what extent we as humans would be able to look at ourselves as a human being in today’s biological sense. This with reference to some of what is being referred to by Mr Melao, about being able to adapt to the planetary conditions that you will encounter. What does one mean by this, well that we as humans are more easily served by transformation our structural set-up by order to adapt to what we may face of climatic challenges, etc., on the planet on which we visualize being able to build our new societies upon. If we as a human species are to ensure our continued existence, then it will not be in our current capsules, but in an alternate state trough adapted evolution, whereby the human biology must interphase with technological innovation, thus resulting as a preformation of a bionic entity.
This adaptation is far more realistic compared to the alternative method by way of terraforming new planets to alter the climatic environment to suite us as humans. So, to the question “do we want to be a multiplanetary species?” Yes, I believe so with all my heart, to not prevent the demise of our very existence is unfadeable to me. We as humans are still in our infancy state, our story has not been told and certainly not being lived in full yet. No, there is too much to be lost if we do not consider ourselves as preservable into this alternate state as an multiplanetary race in the future to come. We must ensure survival through conformance towards preservation of the biological galactical imprint by all cause.
What I think about our own planet becoming smaller and smaller is in the sense of feeling that the earth is becoming more and more narrower, due to the simplification of travel methods and a normalization of the fact that everyone is now in one sense or another a globetrotter, with reference to a global traveler. Hundreds of years ago, the earth was a huge place that could take several months to travel from one corner of the world to another, later it took weeks, then days, and now hours. Our planet is not big enough nor exciting enough that we are now just starting to feel the ever-growing urge to move beyond our own palatial comforts to other more worldly endeavors beyond, out there somewhere beyond the heavenly stars.
If one is to put the human existence in the following perspective:
Man, and its existence do not extend over a very long time.
Our total existence in relation to a single human being has so far reached the age of 14-15 years, in the sense that our race of homo sapiens is now as I see it in the stage of a normal teenager. In the very early stages, thousands of years ago we were pondering about the world and all its content with stat at point in time, the marvelous and confusing grandeur, we began to explore our nearby surroundings as on a par with a baby exploring his own crib. Then as time went on, we humans evolve further and forward in time to a few hundred years ago, we could explore not only our nearby areas, but also explore across borders and continents during several weeks on expeditions.
This again can be seen as a young child at the age of 7-8, who is now moving away from the safe surroundings of the house and exploring his immediate environment.
Forward in time again, to the age where we were introduced to general aviation, which meant that we could now travel anywhere in the world within days and finally hours in the present time. This can be compared to the teenagers who again travel further, beyond now on much longer journeys across national borders etc.
The meaning of this is that we are now soon ready to take the next step towards the age of majority to move out of our safe surroundings, as human urge to move further out away from our own planet towards something new and unknown. I firmly believe that we are still in an early stage of our total existence and have about three quarters and a bit again to live, in the relation to the normal human life expectancy of around eighty years+.
Jacobsen: What could be the reason why NASA did not intend to reduce rampant spending and did like SpaceX and reuse the rockets in the same way as when SpaceX does today?
Melão Jr.: I haven’t followed the evolution of this, so maybe my answer doesn’t make sense. But I think that NASA didn’t have the technology for that, nor was it interested in using part of the budget to try to develop this technology. If they used money for that and couldn’t solve the rocket reuse problem, the money would be lost. SpaceX took the gamble and it worked. After SpaceX has solved the problem and the technology is now available, NASA doesn’t have to risk the venture until it learns how to do it. Just repeat what SpaceX has already shown to work. So my guess is that maybe that’s the main reason or at least one of the reasons.
Jørgensen: The basis for NASA lack of reusability or the mere thought about it by imprudent intent, as to not make it its task to take upon this type of innovation of thereby speculative content is not yet clear to me. What is certain, is that now everyone sees what SpaceX has successfully managed, and in a shared note of what Blue Origin has also done to some degree with reference to SpaceX technology advances regarding concept of reusability and space travel. This must make NASAs executive leaders think back and grimly reconsider its previous fallacies of galloping spending costs and their taxpayer’s later mistrust in return. At one point, it seems that NASA was about to give up all hope of looking towards other planets in the faintest of possibility as to human space travel and the hope of colonizing other nearby systems.
Fortunately for us all, we are now led by Elon Musk’s brilliancy and persistency, so now the hope burns brighter the ever before, a beacon to be behold.
But back to the insane approach of the galloping costs for NASA’s space program. The US state’s belief in what one would assume to be the most competent people in the relativity of space odyssey and its particularities, must then also be governed by the most competent economists by spending such astronomical sums as NASA seizes from the US state’s budgets each year. It is conceivable that one must get a type of divine revelation of a new ingenious shooting star, with which can reignite those most impertinent innovations beyond that oneself is unable to imagine in order to rekindle that all important flame within us all.
A type of remnant of a gone by era whereby a new state of mind initiatives that only the most brilliant intellectuals can enable us to understand in a never-ending alternate state such as Elon Musk has now installed and by with which we the benefactors can thus reap the benefits of taking all those educational lessons with us for further study within the field of notation.
Jacobsen: Can we expect that in the next 100 years we humans will encounter new extraterrestrials races?
Melão Jr.: I’m assuming the question is about living extraterrestrials or that at some point were already alive (fossilized, for example) and whose ancestors are also extraterrestrials. Otherwise the answer would be easy, because if a couple of humans go to a lunar base and they have a child there, the child will be a selenite (or lunarian), or something, or a martian if it’s on a base on Mars, and that should happen in less time, of 100 years. But I imagine you would like to rule out this type of extraterrestrial. So if we’re talking about extraterrestrials whose ancestors have also been extraterrestrials for over 100 years, the probability goes down, but it’s still likely, in my opinion. Objects like Oumuamua probably pass through the Solar System frequently, but are rarely detected because there are no monitoring programs for this. When a systematic project is developed to study objects of this type, then our range in a few decades will be much greater than the current one, reaching far beyond the objects of the Solar System, not because we will be able to go to other astronomical objects in such a short time, but because we will better take advantage of opportunities to study interstellar objects that pass in our vicinity, but which are not currently being studied with due attention.
The answer to this question will also depend a lot on some semantic and etymological details, related to the classification of an organism as “living”. Our current concept of life is very limited, to the point that if we found living organisms with certain properties very different from those we know, we might not recognize them as “living”. The evolution of the concept of “life” should play an important role in this process, expanding the scope of this concept and making it more inclusive. Robots, for example, may be considered “alive” if they meet certain criteria.
In reaction to communicating with intelligent life, in projects like SETI, I think it’s less likely, because our current technology based on radio signals didn’t exist 100 years ago and should become obsolete in 100 years, so it’s very unlikely that alien civilizations are precisely at a stage compatible with ours. Another problem is that the signal strength, even if it is very collimated, would not have a very long range (10 kpc, for example). More advanced communication technologies are more likely to use something like quantum tunneling or some other faster method, and not only would there be no loss in signal strength, this would extend the range to the entire universe and allow for delay-free responses. I’m not saying that this technology will necessarily come from tunneling, but from something equivalent in terms of speed, preservation of “cleanliness” (no noise) and signal strength. But I don’t know if in 100 years it will be available. Maybe so, but I think less than 50% probability.
Jørgensen: As I think it will just be an inevitable fact to be behold in the near to far future, as to the possibility of interaction of new planetary species, the answer is yes. I find myself puzzling as to when this will happen, not if it ever will happen. But it should be noted as to what state, shape or form this alien encounter will be presented in…
Jacobsen: What can we humans expect from AI, according to health, war, space travel etc… in the near future?
Melão Jr.: It depends on some factors. If there are enough investments from now on, in 10 to 15 years we could have some people immortal, or at least have some people with the aging process dramatically slowed down and then stopped, while advances continue to later reverse this process and arrive at immortality. and then resuscitation. The strategy for this already exists, but to be put into practice it would need computational resources and a qualified team dedicating time to it.
Some of the important recent technological leaps have encountered barriers that the researchers involved are failing to overcome. AlphaZero was able to go up from -3000 (negative 3000) rating to 3500 rating with 9 hours of training, learning more in those 9 hours than all of humanity combined has been able to learn about chess in over 500 years. However, AlphaZero’s evolution curve bumped into an asymptotic limit and if it kept training for 100 years it wouldn’t be able to climb from 3500 to 3900, maybe not even 3800 or 3700. This effect also happens with Shogi, Gô, Atari games and probably almost all board games and other types of problems if addressed by this solution strategy.
If you use more processing power, yes, it can reach 4000, but in terms of improving heuristics, it has stagnated. A similar problem happens with Lc0 and StockFish. Stockfish shows no real improvement since version 13, the difference from version 15 to 13 is 4 points, while the uncertainty in the measurement is 17 points.
Source: https://ccrl.chessdom.com/ccrl/4040/rating_list_all.html
Demis Hassabis’ idea for using reinforcement deep learning the way he did was important in getting to this stage, but there is no prospect of moving forward until the issues that make the next step possible are resolved. In the case of AlphaZero I don’t know exactly what they did other than what they make available on the site, but in the case of Lc0 there is more public information and the system itself is available to be tested extensively, and there are many errors in Lc0 and optimization details inadequate that need improvement, and I suppose there are a lot of similar problems in the case of AlphaZero, maybe not quite the same problems as Lc0, but just as serious, certainly.
Jørgensen: If one looks at what we today experience regarding artificial intelligence, then for me it will be regarded towards optimism, this based on the extensive help that one can now receive in so many ways. Going forward, when a self-perception will be duly important for AI and its denotative constructs, can then quickly be turned witnessed by genuine concern of the unknown. One even hopes that the help that we all enjoy and know today for example by what Google Search, Google Translate, Google Maps etc., does for each of us every day all around the world. So, the way forward I hope, will address the preconception of securing humanity further for a common coexistence, with the fusing of our biological matter with the technological artificial intelligence into a higher form for symbiotic existential awareness, as an all-important first step to further human advances in the hope of preservation of our existential survival.
Regards to the topic of warfare, we see a lot of it today, with self-searching missile systems, drones etc. The soldiers of the future will in such a sense be superfluous, as rocket installations and long-distance warfare will deal with virtually all enemy installations and personnel. Small pockets of elite soldiers that we have today, where I want to highlight the Telemark Battalion, Norway’s elite soldiers, which soon will be equipped, I mean with improved performance over what is viewed as a normal top performance effect for humans in battle. A similar state of what the movie franchise ” The Universal Soldier”, displayed which many of us enjoyed in the early 90’s. This is form me the first obviously step to take for the advancement of elite forces in the near future.
To the point of space travel, we humans must adapt to long and very challenging space travel over long distances in the not too far future. Whereby challenges as for example, muscle loss, room sickness, and all the other biological challenges that we humans must deal with, where our human weaknesses emerge so all too well, will need to be limited at all costs if a long-distance space travel is to be successful.
As mentioned earlier, a changed outcome for our own part is essential for our survival in the future, we cannot solely rely on having to terra form new potential habitable planets, the time is not on our side for that. We are currently experts in adaptation regarding out surroundings come what may, so this is the way to go in the future of space travel. Furthermore, we need to find ways to travel faster than light, or to discover wormholes that can be exploited if possible.
If we are talking about long space travel, it is not enough to live for 80+ years as we do now, we extend our life expectancy to at least 200-300 hundred years or more with our current rocket speed limit slingshot through space in order to reach a potential planetary star systems that can house us in the future. The alternative is as mentioned earlier, to exceed the current light speed by many warps. In summary, if AI does not wipe us out and thus their need for self-preservation ceases, we must also cease our troublesome self-perception by and for the preservation of the biological origin over to a pre amt understanding by the transferable biological input- transference by morphonology technological output, resulting in an alternate state of existence to ensure the species’ survival.
Jacobsen: What are the future prospects of man according to AI and its non-extended properties in all faults, where emphasis is placed on: extinction of the species man or coexistence?
Melão Jr.: Depends on what will be considered “human”. In Asimov’s book/film “Bicentennial Man”, robots added more and more human parts, until they became practically human. But it’s more likely that the path followed in the real world is the other way around, and humans put more and more inorganic parts, until you get to a point where maybe only the brain remains, and maybe later the brain too is replaced by something equivalent, but with very different structure.
Jørgensen: The prospects for man, are for me in the hope of a formative symbiosis, where a common perception of ours and their values is united. But one sees clearly that this will probably not become a reality, if we humans today live in the present and are unable by the large amount to see beyond the horizon against the dangers that threaten if we continue the course we are now on today. My frustration is based on the following notion, if the interest as to the importance of the intellect is the same size as that of our head, and that the interest in the physiological ramifications correspond from the neck down, then the intellect will always lose ground for the physiological manifestations.
This is simplified, so that the people who can answer the challenges of the future are in my opinion in a weathering state of despair according to the general verification thereof. It can almost be states that; “are we humans worth saving or not?” This is probably where one can to a certain extent consider that all life is worth saving, but still, where do we draw the line for the preservability by species diversity. If we are to be able to answer the challenges of the future, then from what I see a deviation on the intelligence scale must be increased upwards at all levels.
For me, this is probably to be regarded as a type of Darwinian way of thinking, whereas the strong will prevail in the battle for ones right to exist and the weak will most likely perish, at least when it comes to one’s cognitive state. The technological challenges do not allow for those with limited cognitive abilities in the future, sad but true.
We are soon doomed to lose our current alpha role in society, and when this will happen, then only those with the best ability to adapt and shows willfulness through morphologically changing their original biological imprint towards a higher state of biotechnological self enhancement. In other words, the most selective adaptational individuals will have the best chances of securing one’s spawn further and the weakly will fall away, this can be seen as a necessity for the very continuation of our species survival in a hopefully subordinate role with AI as the new alpha.
Jacobsen: Does the term “genius” disappear according to what capabilities AI might possess?
Melão Jr.: The concept of “genius” should not be formulated to apply exclusively to humans. This concept can be subdivided in the taxonomic hierarchy by species, by genus, by family, etc. and may include new groups of organisms such as robots or organic and inorganic aliens, even the concept of “organic” could be reconsidered to include silicon beings, depending on the properties of the beings that eventually fall into this group.
One can use the concept of “human genius”, as well as “human giant”, or chimpanzee genius, giant chimpanzee, depending on the level of rarity or the amount of standard deviations away from the mean, or some similar criterion.
Within each animal, plant, mineral, monera, etc. and other alien life forms and inorganic beings, beings may “accept” some attributes that have a coherent meaning within their respective category, but not accept other attributes. For example: giant rocks, albino elephants, genius humans, triboluminescent fish . But not genius rocks or lepton bunnies or yellow scream, because some categories don’t accept certain concepts. They could admit as metaphors or poetic licenses, but the meanings would be analogies with some losses, distortions and damage to the rigor of the meanings. “Genius stones” would not establish an intelligible idea. I could try to force the “genius” attribute to stone, but that would start to have a consistency that is too fragile for proper analysis. It would be more advisable to “filter” the attributes that each category of entities could receive, to maintain some logical rigor in the analysis.
In this case, among all classes of organisms that accept the attribute “intelligence”, it would also be possible to apply quantifiers of relative intensity of intelligence, such as “genius”. The application of these attributes within the same species would be easier, because generally the distribution of a variable within the same species is similar to a Gaussian, or after a few transformations (logarithm of the variable, for example) it becomes similar to a Gaussian. A genius dog would be one with an intelligence 3 (or 4 or 5) standard deviations above the mean. Within the “dogs” group there is a smooth curve of intensity levels for variables such as height, running speed or intelligence.
When considering different species mixed together, the distribution form can no longer be normal, it can even be very different from a normal one and strongly asymmetric, with some discontinuities or with some deep reductions in frequency in the intervals that separate two species, moreover, in instead of taking the form of a normal, it may take the form of a distribution in which the smallest organisms are much more numerous than the largest. But the concept of level of rarity would still be applicable whatever the distribution of the variable of interest, so that it would still be possible to apply the attribute “genius” to a group of categories of beings, as long as the beings of these categories accepted the attribute “intelligence”. I am simplifying things, to describe the idea, but naturally the meaning of “genius” would not need to be based exclusively on “intelligence”. To get the point across, let’s assume that “genius” is simply a quantifier of intelligence.
By approaching the question in this way, perhaps mammals contained all the geniuses in existence. Or maybe the macroscopic animals contained all the jinn. It would depend a lot on what the criterion for conceptualizing “genius” would be. If it were for rarity within the population of individuals, whether individuals would be weighted by size, mass, by some other criterion, whether rarity would be stratified by species, etc. It would also depend on the cut-off point to determine at what rarity level the “genius” rating would start to apply, whether 1 in 1,000, or 1 in 1,000,000 or something else.
Analyzing an example: if we were to consider the distribution of all individuals of all species mixed together, without any weighting, then as the number of microorganisms is much greater than that of large organisms, if the number of microorganisms is 10^12 times greater than the number of insects and even larger beings, then insects could already be classified as “geniuses” because they would be at the top of 1 in 1,000,000 of the most intelligent beings in the general population, since the general population would be mostly of microorganisms. If the criterion were different and considered the average intelligence by species and stratified by species, on a planet with 10 million species, if the criterion for “genius” were 1 in 1 million, then probably some great apes and some great cetaceans would be classified as geniuses. Although humans are significantly above other primates, it would be a little more difficult to establish a statistical criterion along this path that would make it possible to “surgically” separate humans from other animals, including because there are some gorillas and chimpanzees that are more intelligent than some humans.
In this context, inorganic beings such as AIs that are smarter than humans, or almost as smart as humans or gorillas or dolphins, would also receive this classification of “geniuses”. If the criteria were based on rarity, there wouldn’t be much difference on an ordinal scale between a robot and a human, because they would both be near the top, the robot first in the world and humans second. While robots could be many orders of magnitude smarter than humans, the criterion based on rarity would not do much to create a special class for robots. This is a situation in which the standardization method I described in 2000 would be successfully applied, because it would make it possible to measure the extent to which robots are smarter than humans, rather than simply measuring species rarity levels.
In the current scenario, for example, humans are 1st and perhaps chimpanzees or gorillas are 2nd, and the proportion is relatively small of members of the species that are 1st to members of the species that are 2nd. Perhaps the average intelligence of humans is 100 times the average of chimpanzees, just 2 orders of magnitude. It is not much, there is even an intersection between the distributions of intellectual levels of humans and other great primates. In the case of AIs , perhaps the ratio to humans is something like 10^6 or 10^9, so even the smartest humans wouldn’t come close to the intellectual level of average intelligence machines, or even faulty machines. Perhaps, in the beginning, we preserved some intellectual attributes in which we could still excel, but it would be a matter of time before the machines were surpassing us in practically all relevant aspects.
If the criterion were based on proportion of intellectual potential, rather than levels of rarity, it would be easier and more logical to separate the intellectual level of robots and humans, as well as separating humans and other animals, although often not. there is a well-defined interface and the levels intersect.
Therefore the term genius would continue to be applicable, both within specific species and in groups of species and groups of intelligent entities. But instead of the term “genius” it might be necessary to use “human genius” to distinguish from “genius” among all species . Subdivisions could also be created at higher and lower levels. Human-scale “deep genius” or “universal genius” tests would be relatively little for AI systems, and an average AI level could be too high for any human to achieve. In the case of hybrid humans there would also be categories according to the breadth of the connection and the preserved proportion of humanity. In Asimov’s book/film “Bicentennial Man” he thinks that robots would want to become humans, but it is much more likely that humans want to become robots, which would be “dangerous” in many ways, because maybe the feeling, the emotion, some attributes that we consider essentially human and animals, may not be relevant to robots and will gradually become extinct. I wouldn’t know to what extent this could be bad. In science fiction robots evolve in the sense of developing feelings, but perhaps the real path of evolution is in the sense that humans are progressively deprived of organic parts associated with feelings.
Jacobsen: Does the term “genius” disappear according to what capabilities AI might possess?
Jorgensen: I will start by proclaiming the following statement of “never”, and here is why I think so. The term genius, better known as to the “creative intellect”, whereby the creative mind is put in focus as to the human creativeness. The innovative marvel that embraces our intellectual experience centers, proclaimed by peritonitis of amazement of what the human mind is capable of producing. This is what I want to statuette here forth, and not to move beyond what is meant to form the basis of the question formulation initially, the magical intellect.
The term “genius” for the intended purpose will here for me, not only remain, but also be reinforced, as it can easily be surpassed not in the short term but in the long term in terms of human intellectual maxims. Following protrude as to what one should then focus on, hereby understood as focus on the individual’s intellectual creativity, as many great innovators was far ahead of their own time, have given us mere mortals a glimpse into the future, duly noted, and as in most cases not in their own lifetimes, but after their passing. Then, when the final revelations come to light, then everyone can rediscover these geniuses again as a prompt renaissance seance, thus presenting the opportunity to be immortalized ones again for all future prosperity.
This goes for; Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, and many more brilliant intellectual diamonds not only in the West, but for the rest of the world as well … Their inventions, their unbridled drive, courage, unstoppable perseverance to proclaim their worth in the past, present and, yes, promptly stated for all eternity. The unambiguity abilities of these innovators and their approach as to how the world works, or rather, to see what infinite possibilities the world has to offer far beyond us mere mortals, is for me the most beautiful human marvel of all the worlds creations.
In today’s world, most of the material we all use every day is being produced by an assembly line process controlled by machines. Machines account for almost everything that is being made today, everything from textiles, cars, food, electronics, heavy industry, shipping materials etc. What is being hand-made which was almost everything back 100-150 years ago, is now to be viewed as very exclusive and precious more now than ever before. In the future, this effect, as I see it, will only increase in its exclusivity, especially when it comes to what the human imaginative innovations, bespoke and perfected with the extra little distinctiveness. And it is the distinctiveness that will become so much more of a valuable commodity, the handcraft that only a human can create with his faults and shortcomings, far beyond of what any machine could ever create, machine production is without sense of feel, a gentle touch, delicacy, emotions, just lifeless production without any notion of self-pride…
A.I will be able to create beautiful architectural structures, cars, textiles etc. but put a little bluntly, AI for me represents; “quantity”, and for the human genius it represents; “quality.” Which one would you like…? AI will be amazing in many ways, possibly far beyond what we can ever truly understand, but it will never be able to replace those most special human qualities. We as humans are unique in every way just as our fingerprints are, no two are alike, on an equal footing with all living beings, we are not mass-produced.
Not that this is necessarily the case with AI, but I see that I am also a bit hesitant about cloning as well, as even here the uniqueness is diluted to a certain degree. Genius will for me remain unchanged and most likely only reinforced further ahead in the future, as we will only even more, hold on to the fundamental values of being that very special person, where you are you and no one else has your particular qualities, whereas your extraordinary abilities cannot be recreated by any higher intelligent being, not now, not ever…
Jacobsen: What will be the basis of AI’s very existence, will it see its own usefulness and will try to develop and preserve it, but then for what purpose?
Melão Jr.: The path leading carbon-based beings to develop consciousness was very different from the path being followed by silicon systems. The first organisms arose spontaneously and they did not consciously think or struggle to survive or multiply. It was random behavior, among other random behaviors, that ended up favoring some alternatives and making populations of entities with certain characteristics more numerous than others. Therefore, from the moment that life appears, it tends to multiply and evolve. In the course of this process, consciousness, pain, hunger, fear, greed, loyalty, love, friendship, empathy, and other extremely complex chemical processes that produce certain reactions to certain stimuli, reactions that previously pass through a very complicated process between the moment the organism receives the stimulus and reacts to it, leading us to what we are today, as well as other animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, etc. to what they are today. The reaction of removing the hand from the fire when feeling pain or the process of choosing a partner with wider hips to procreate were modeled throughout this process as factors that increased our likelihood of producing more offspring for the next generation. There are many factors, and they were not consciously planned. In the case of robots, we are trying to recreate this in a simplified way and in a very different way, in which we want to prevent them from becoming competitive with us.
In an article in which I show that Moravec’s paradox is actually a pseudo-paradox, I comment on the example of the car, the way it moves faster than other animals, but using different structures, different strategy and taking advantage of laws different physiques. In chess machines play better than humans, but they don’t “think” in a similar way. Before AlphaZero, machines thought very differently, but they were able to solve the same problems much better than we could, in different ways. We understood many concepts and tried to apply these concepts in relatively complex decision processes to choose the best bids, while the programs did not understand any concepts, they just did a lot of calculations and used appropriate heuristics to prune the tree of possibilities and prevent the forks from branching. a number much higher than they could calculate. But with AlphaZero this situation changed very radically and he really started to simulate the “understanding” of strategic concepts, and he went far beyond humans in this, because he understands the concepts more and better, he discovered many concepts that we still don’t understand.
Chess programs prior to AlphaZero only received a simplified algorithmic description of a few concepts, a small part of the concepts that we knew and considered most relevant, and compensated for the lack of strategic “knowledge” with immense calculation capacity and good heuristics. to prune variants that did not deserve to be explored in depth. But AlphaZero plays like a human, he even calculates worse than humans in situations with long variants that have few ramifications, and this is impressive, because a human calculates 1 or 2 throws per second, while AlphaZero calculates 30,000 throws per second. Even so, humans calculate further than Alpha Zero in some positions. Of course, despite this Alpha Zero plays much better, but that’s not a major novelty. Since 2007 and maybe since 2003, programs have played better than humans, but never have they shown to “understand” the game better than humans and calculate worse than humans. Perhaps I should comment a little more on why Deep Blue’s victory in 1997 could not be interpreted as the watershed of when machines surpassed humans in chess, but that would be a bit extensive. I will just say that Deep Blue wasn’t that strong, won by “luck” (and with a few other suspicions) and was removed from the scene so that no one would find out what really happened. It’s different from when Deep Junior and Deep Fritz tied with Kasparov and Kramnik in 2000 and 2003, and finally when Rybka emerged in 2005-2007, the supremacy of machines became unquestionable.
While AlphaZero’s 30,000 throws per second is far less than StockFish’s 3,000,000,000 throws per second, it’s far more than humans’ 2 throws per second, yet humans still calculate better than AlphaZero in some cases, while AlphaZero “understands ” concepts are much better than humans. In a way, it’s as if AlphaZero is more human than humans, in some ways. AlphaZero followed a path in which he himself evolved for this, without human intervention, without learning anything from humans, similar to living carbon beings. So this seems to be a promising path, in some ways. Of course, the analogy is neither broad nor perfect, AlphaZero is probably more complex than a microorganism, so it started its evolution at a different point. In addition, there are many other differences, and some human “guidance” on how he should evolve, although there are no interventions in the content he learns and how he discovers knowledge and how he selects the most useful knowledge, there is a broad prior structure created by humans about the criteria and structure that it should adopt to learn, while microorganisms did not have this, there was much greater “freedom” to test anything that worked, and in this process some reactions such as “fear” or “hunger” ended up emerging. as “useful”, but for AlphaZero it would not be in the still specialized context in which it operates.
Then we come to the car situation. A human moves very differently from a horse, a flea, a snake, a bird or a fish, but all animals have a certain similarity in the process of moving that is very different from using wheels. Perhaps the snake is more different from other animals, but it also moves very differently from a being that uses wheels. Although these animals are different from each other, they are all very different from the car, and a car like a Bugatti can beat all animals at speed (on a proper track). Nature never produced an animal that developed wheels, because it was something “planned” to adapt to a situation whose properties were understood by the wheel designer and there was not much need to do billions of random tests to find a good fit. Another important point is that the ground has been adjusted to harmonize with the wheels. No other animal does this very ostentatiously. Beavers can build small dams, and other animals can build other structures that affect the environment, such as corals or bees, but humans do this in a much deeper and “planned” way. The beaver doesn’t think about how to build the dams, he simply follows his instinct like factory pre-installed software. It is different from humans, who look at a mountain, want to make a road through it, and analyze whether it is better to drill a hole in the mountain, go over it, go on one side or go down and follow another path without changing the landscape. Also, humans can use many different methods to drill through the mountain and can create new technologies for it, while beavers will follow the same method as their ancestors did.
So the way humans interact with the environment is much more complex, and humans are able to continually optimize and improve their methods, rather than relying on random evolutionary changes that cause the next generations to be born with mutations that lead them to test different strategies for dig holes in mountains. Thus, humans can plan wheels and flat lanes that match better than legs on paths with uneven topologies. In addition, the use of fuels, engines, various devices that improve the process of locomotion of a car evolve very differently from the natural evolution of animals. Leonardo Da Vinci’s idea of using propellers instead of wings was also very interesting, although he was probably based on Archimedes’ screw. Before him, and after him, for centuries and millennia people wanted to fly imitating birds, using wings. But Leonardo understood that this was not the case and showed that this may not be the most promising path, or at least there may be one or more alternative paths to consider.
So the way machines are evolving under our guidance may never produce something like consciousness, because they do exclusively what we would like them to do to meet specific needs and solve specific problems, or broader problems, but with well-defined limits. However, when machines begin to have “freedom” to evolve by themselves, as happened with AlphaGo, AlphaZero, MuZero, Lc0 etc., the directions that things can take are out of our control and maybe they choose paths that lead to formation of characteristics such as fear, selfishness, ambition, revolt, etc. As the training of these machines can be very fast, and in 10 hours a machine can develop a “personality”, it becomes dangerous that this escapes our control and that psychopathic, human-killing machines are created, or simply that they feel wronged by the way humans make use of them. At the current stage, MuZero is still far from creating a personality of his own during evolution in his training, but with 1 or 2 innovative leaps in the evolutionary process, this could already become a reality. I am using “evolution” and “training” mixed together, but they are quite different and can and should be combined, with the difference that in the Darwinian model of Evolution organisms do not transmit characters acquired during life, but for machines this can be configured according to our will, a form of Neo Lamarckism.
So the formation of consciousness will depend a lot on the path taken in the evolutionary process, on strategic interruptions in this process to test how they are developing, etc. Even so, it is dangerous, because machines can “pretend” that they are evolving along a certain path, so that they can proceed without interruption. So I think that if humanity doesn’t self-destruct in a war or there’s no shortage of energy to continue technological advances, or some other impediment, probably machines, sooner or later, will develop consciousness, although maybe it’s a very different kind of consciousness from ours. Perhaps they understand that they exist, perhaps they “want” to remain active (alive) and fight for it, perhaps they are competitive with some machines and allied with others, in addition to the possibility of all being connected in a single central and there is no difference between individuality and collective, while they are connected. Perhaps before all this happens, we are already well integrated with them, with more than 50% of the human body replaced by mechanical/electronic parts and we are part of these connections. Perhaps they use our brains as a complement to process their consciousness.
Jørgensen: Every creation of varying degrees of intelligent designation can have its experience of the importance of preserving the survival of one’s species. We as humans are cognitively minded in the preservation, by and for the future preservation of our species. Can the same be said for the survival of the various animal diversity? Is species diversity of lower cognitive perception, whereas the transfer of latent instincts can then be seen as elements of safeguarding the species’ right to further existence? Which then further brings me, to what can be said about artificial intelligence and if it will only be viewed as a mere reinforcing factor for future consolidation of species diversity’s right to self-preservation over one’s species brethren.
The distance can well be duly noted, as to be amplified as the distance from animals to humans is of a certain preconception of the biological separation, a “us and them.” This is thought by the undersigned to be amplified according to our own biological imprint, as well as cognitive perception to be weathered even more according to an upgraded bionic entity, whereby the degree of inclination is tended towards full technological function regarding both the physiological and cognitive statute. For me, the distance will be perceived as increasing, and those who are seen as subordinates will then again be regarded as non-important elements for species diversity conservation in the future.
The weak fall away and perish and the strong will survive.
AI, for me, will have all these qualities in the more distant future as we as humans will not be considered important enough to be preserved. I sadly feel that we humans have outplayed our most important thus dominant role in the big picture.
But what about AI and its role, when “it” perceives themselves with their extremely exalted cognitive state, will they make the necessary calculations for the decision either or according to cessation due to lack of view on the preservation of one’s own species. An unavoidable fact, is that we humans need a reason to exist, a secure anchor point to be able to behold the meaning of life if you will, it can be within, religion, politics, environment, etc. But the fact that we all need a reason to get up in the morning cannot be discussed away, let alone with AI, and their reason for “getting up in the morning”, if I may allow me to put it like that, what will be their reason for getting up in the morning?
I must admit that this is of course only speculative formatives to be considered purely as a hypothetically presentation, but still … It is conceivable that of what imprints that man has installed in AI’s connotative state, can be considered as a sufficient basis for preservation beyond what one can speculate here.
If the reason can be revealed for a future whereby only technological mechanical objects are present, the biological diversity will be weathered, as their existential merits will for me cease to exist. By what is a machine to do with forests, flowers, animals, insects etc. but to see them as simple and pointless obstructions…
I in a moment of utopistic hope, that, to take concise notes, then change one’s biological structural in the search for something more imminent and substantially bearing. If AI wants to experience nature’s fantastic seasonal manifestations that we all as humans experience and adore, AI will look at this blue planet as something worth to be preserved, but realistically, it does not necessarily meet AI and its own ideals of beautiful nor necessary and important life functions for innovative and vital incentives by and for conservation of the species.
I find myself concluding the following notion, by not finding a fully enlighten obvious answer as to “the meaning of life” for AI, hopefully this answer will be presented by some of you that reads this…
Footnotes
[1] Hindemburg Melão Jr. is the author of solutions to scientific and mathematical problems that have remained unsolved for decades or centuries, including improvements on works by 5 Nobel laureates, holder of a world record in longest announced checkmate in blindfold simultaneous chess games, registered in the Guinness Book 1998, author of the Sigma Test Extended and founder of some high IQ societies.
[2] Tor Arne Jørgensen is a member of 50+ high IQ societies, including World Genius Directory, NOUS High IQ Society, 6N High IQ Society just to name a few. Tor Arne was also in 2019, nominated for the World Genius Directory 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe. He is also the designer of the high range test site; www.toriqtests.com.
[3] Individual Publication Date: June 15, 2022: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/melao-jorgensen-1; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2022: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.
*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 