Can William James Sidis the World's Smartest Man Beat AlphaZero if He Were Alive??? - Chess Forums - Page 3

shadowarcher28

Jun 4, 2021

0

#41

BlackLawliet wrote:

shadowarcher28 wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

I just read a synopsis of him. There's no evidence that he had an IQ of over 200. It's also rather a coincidence that the World's Smartest Man is American. And who estimated his IQ?

He doesn't seem very smart, the way he lived his life. And he probably didn't play chess.

I beg to differ. First of all, I see no relevance in bringing up that he is American. Second of all, the level of accomplishments he had in no way pertains to his IQ. He could however speak multiple languages and even made up his own complete language by age 9. He is also the author of the book "The Animate and the Inanimate". This book speculates about the creation of life in the context of thermodynamics. Also, as previously mentioned, he attended Harvard at a very young age. Who are you to judge his intelligence based on his lifestyle?

IQ not chess level bruh

I know. I clarified that I was referring to IQ multiple times. Did you even read it?

no. sorry ill read it now I didn't have a lot of time

BlackLawliet

Jun 4, 2021

0

#42

Optimissed wrote:

Avirishfire wrote:

sorry for caps.

It's ok about the caps.

Bit of a coincidence that the cleverest person ever to live was thought to have been someone who was alive within living memory and was American. There have been others but they weren't American.

It is statistically likely that the smartest person alive would live in a recent scope of time do to the Flynn effect. But I suppose I agree that it is a definite possibility that there was a smarter person than Sidis who was not American. Still, I don't see your point in bringing up his nationality.

Avirishfire

Jun 4, 2021

0

#43

yea

Avirishfire

Jun 4, 2021

0

#44

kinda like calling Americans DUMB which is not cool

BlunderTest

Jun 4, 2021

0

#45

Sidis' accomplishments sound quite impressive -- for a human.

But self-directed AI could accomplish many of those tasks in a fraction of the time, without much effort at all.

Learning foreign languages, for example. If it were directed to do so, a self-learning neural network could learn all the world's languages in a matter of minutes. Perhaps seconds.

I think some people believe that a high IQ can somehow compete with machine learning. I don't believe it can. Not these days.

Eventually, AI will begin to create superior art, music, and literature to humans, as well. And each of those masterpieces will be created in mere fractions of seconds.

But that will likely be so far in the future that none of us will be around to see it.

BlackLawliet

Jun 4, 2021

0

#46

BlunderTest wrote:

Sidis' accomplishments sound quite impressive -- for a human.

But self-directed AI could accomplish many of those tasks in a fraction of the time, without much effort at all.

Learning foreign languages, for example. If it were directed to do so, a self-learning neural network could learn all the world's languages in a matter of minutes. Perhaps seconds.

I think some people believe that a high IQ can somehow compete with machine learning. I don't believe it can. Not these days.

Eventually, AI will begin to create superior art, music, and literature to humans, as well. But that will likely be so far in the future that none of us will be around to see it.

I agree. We were merely debating the true scope of his intelligence, but in reality, there is a zero percent chance that he could even make a draw with AlphaZero.

ArjunM18

Jun 28, 2021

0

#47

BlackLawliet wrote:

BlunderTest wrote:

Sidis' accomplishments sound quite impressive -- for a human.

But self-directed AI could accomplish many of those tasks in a fraction of the time, without much effort at all.

Learning foreign languages, for example. If it were directed to do so, a self-learning neural network could learn all the world's languages in a matter of minutes. Perhaps seconds.

I think some people believe that a high IQ can somehow compete with machine learning. I don't believe it can. Not these days.

Eventually, AI will begin to create superior art, music, and literature to humans, as well. But that will likely be so far in the future that none of us will be around to see it.

I agree. We were merely debating the true scope of his intelligence, but in reality, there is a zero percent chance that he could even make a draw with AlphaZero.

ArjunM18

Jun 28, 2021

0

#48

BlackLawliet wrote:

shadowarcher28 wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

I just read a synopsis of him. There's no evidence that he had an IQ of over 200. It's also rather a coincidence that the World's Smartest Man is American. And who estimated his IQ?

He doesn't seem very smart, the way he lived his life. And he probably didn't play chess.

I beg to differ. First of all, I see no relevance in bringing up that he is American. Second of all, the level of accomplishments he had in no way pertains to his IQ. He could however speak multiple languages and even made up his own complete language by age 9. He is also the author of the book "The Animate and the Inanimate". This book speculates about the creation of life in the context of thermodynamics. Also, as previously mentioned, he attended Harvard at a very young age. Who are you to judge his intelligence based on his lifestyle?

IQ not chess level bruh

I know. I clarified that I was referring to IQ multiple times. Did you even read it?

Wits-end

Jun 28, 2021

0

#49

World’s smartest man? How do we know? If he was tested and found to have an IQ of 250-300 as some have asserted, it doesn’t appear that it can be proven. By all accounts he was a very intelligent man, but world’s smartest? Perhaps one may say he was one of the smartest men we know of. What about women? Consider all that may not have ever been “discovered.” His family fled Ukraine to escape political and anti-Semitic persecution, how many others might there have been with high intelligence? I doubt he could defeat Alpha Zero, perhaps he might have given the chance. If so, we’d likely see many of today’s masters also extremely gifted in mathematics.

Wits-end

Jun 28, 2021

0

#50

Wait, Superman played chess?

Wits-end

Jun 28, 2021

0

#51

Well, i know Superman was often mistaken for a bird or a plane, but chess? Was Sidis ever mistakenly identified as a bird or a plane? Or did he just waste his 46 years on geometry and the Native American influence on American democracy?

IpswichMatt

Jun 28, 2021

0

#52

Optimissed wrote:

I don't necessarily believe the Flynn Effect. There's evidence that IQ is changing but that in some respects it's decreasing. Obviously, it isn't going to be static but some mental abilities will be becoming more prevalent and others, less so. Quoting such an hypothesis isn't really a good argument.

Just been googling the Flynn Effect, found this https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289608000998 which suggests it might be down to better pre and post-natal nutrition. The idea that people are becoming more intelligent as time progresses always bothered me. You'd have thought that for that to be the case the more intelligent people must be reproducing more, don't think there's evidence for that.

Reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy".

IpswichMatt

Jun 28, 2021

0

#53

Optimissed wrote:

An American also invented the electric light bulb, didn't he?

I've been googling again - Sir Humphrey Davy, right?

Wits-end

Jun 28, 2021

0

#54

If the young William’s parents had forced him to study chess rather than forcing him to be a polyglot and mathematician i have no doubt he would have been a decent chessman. But in fairness to the OP, my answer to the question is “no.”

Wits-end

Jun 28, 2021

0

#55

IpswichMatt wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

An American also invented the electric light bulb, didn't he?

I've been googling again - Sir Humphrey Davy, right?

The Davy light.

BlackLawliet

Jun 28, 2021

0

#56

Optimissed wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

I just read a synopsis of him. There's no evidence that he had an IQ of over 200. It's also rather a coincidence that the World's Smartest Man is American. And who estimated his IQ?

He doesn't seem very smart, the way he lived his life. And he probably didn't play chess.

I beg to differ. First of all, I see no relevance in bringing up that he is American. Second of all, the level of accomplishments he had in no way pertains to his IQ. He could however speak multiple languages and even made up his own complete language by age 9. He is also the author of the book "The Animate and the Inanimate". This book speculates about the creation of life in the context of thermodynamics. Also, as previously mentioned, he attended Harvard at a very young age. Who are you to judge his intelligence based on his lifestyle?

Are you saying that he didn't make a complete mess of his life? Well obviousy, I have a lot more life experience than he had and even that isn't necessary when one looks at his lifestyle. Why are you so defensive about him? He was a child prodigy who was mal-adapted to life. An intelligent person uses that intelligence to find out how to adapt. They don't buy into the image that other people have made about them and then use that as an excuse when their life's a disaster. The estimate of his IQ is a guess but even if he played chess, why should he be able to beat Alpha-Zero? Superman or something?

As I said, I don't even think he could get a draw against alpha zero. I however do believe that he was highly intelligent

BlackLawliet

Jun 28, 2021

0

#57

Optimissed wrote:

Anyway, since people want to talk about statistics, it should be obvious that there's an overwhelming, statistical probability that he wasn't the World's smartest man, even if we ignore the argument that he was incapable of adapting and a highly intelligent person is capable of adapting.

This argument is truly one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read. It's not that he couldn't adapt, but what you call "Not being able to adapt" Is a very common theme that we see in wildly intelligent people. It's not that they can't adapt, it's that they tend to think that what is going on inside their head at any given moment is more important than what's going on around them. This causes them to be socially awkward, hermits, etc. They are just not concerned with the mundane world that we live in

lfPatriotGames

Jun 28, 2021

0

#58

shadowarcher28 wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

I just read a synopsis of him. There's no evidence that he had an IQ of over 200. It's also rather a coincidence that the World's Smartest Man is American. And who estimated his IQ?

He doesn't seem very smart, the way he lived his life. And he probably didn't play chess.

exactly. it seems kind of strange considering the average American IQ is 98, two less than the average, compared to Singapore's 108, South Korea's 106, Italy's 102, Switzerland's 101 and the UK's 100,

That seems extremely generous. There must be a lot of brilliant people in America to bring the average IQ up to 98. Two days ago I went to a dance recital. It was held outdoors because of the extreme heat we are having, well above 100 degrees. And yet someone decided it would be a good idea to bring their dog. And leave it in the car.

BlackLawliet

Jun 28, 2021

0

#59

Optimissed wrote:

BlackLawliet wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

Anyway, since people want to talk about statistics, it should be obvious that there's an overwhelming, statistical probability that he wasn't the World's smartest man, even if we ignore the argument that he was incapable of adapting and a highly intelligent person is capable of adapting.

This argument is truly one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read. It's not that he couldn't adapt, but what you call "Not being able to adapt" Is a very common theme that we see in wildly intelligent people. It's not that they can't adapt, it's that they tend to think that what is going on inside their head at any given moment is more important than what's going on around them. This causes them to be socially awkward, hermits, etc. They are just not concerned with the mundane world that we live in

Well, I recognised the problems that having an extremely high IQ as well as a photographic memory brought and I took the decision for survival by adaptation. I do actually understand the subject first hand. That's hardly an observation from ignorance. You really ought, if you're arguing with people, to try to understand perspectives that are potentially opposed to your own.

It seems you have quite the ego Optimissed. You stand behind your high IQ as if it's a wall protecting you from any and all contradictions to your arguments. I really didn't expect anyone to stoop so low as to say that they know what the challenges of being a genius are because they've experienced them first hand. Hate to rain on your parade, but even if you are clever, Sidis is on a whole other level above you, which is why your argument is so flawed. You can't even prove that you are intelligent, and even if you could it would be irrelevant as you still probably wouldn't even be close to the absurdly high intelligence of those who you refrence

BlackLawliet

Jun 28, 2021

0

#60

Optimissed wrote:

Oh, so first it was that I'm ignorant and now it's ego. Are you totally sure the ego isn't from your side, though? I mean, we do all have egos and you do seem to be deliberately picking a quarrel.

I don't think Sidis was in another league, or anything like that. Just different. I think that you should try to seek insights which could be quite revealing rather than to picture yoursef as a potential thundercloud and all others are having a parade. Again, it's statistically unlikely, because most people who start arguments like this one aren't that bright themselves. I'm not accusing you of that, of course.

I first said you were ignorant and then egotistical because I believe you are both. I'm picking a quarrel because I believe you are wrong.

Of course, you don't think that Sidis is in another league, because that would damage the picture you have of being the arbiter of all things pertaining to intelligence. I'm at least humble enough to admit that Sidis was out of my league intelligence-wise, but if you said that, all your credibility would be lost. As for the metaphor you made about me being a thundercloud over everybody's parade, I just am fairly knowledgable in the subject of intelligence and I think you are wrong, but remember that it takes 2 to debate, so it isn't me alone perpetuating this. As for your last thing about me being statistically unintelligent... it was just stupid. People, who start these arguments aren't bright? really? I thought you could be a little more creative than that