Arguably… kind of, but never with a single number.
From a multidimensional intersectional hypothesis of intelligence point of view, the “IQ” should be a series of several hundred measurements; a single number is meaningless. Even then, we still lack a bottom-up theory of intelligence, so all tests are just sociological comparisons as related to a population at a given moment in time.
There are indications that some “basic capability for developing problem solving skills” may exist, but we’re nowhere close to even defining it, much less measuring it.
Somewhat ironically, as we’ve developed AI systems… the only way to train them, has been to use neural networks and a “spray and pray” approach with extra steps, making them into 99% black boxes… so now we can “reproduce some behaviors associated with intelligence”, without being that much closer to understanding it 😆
Arguably… kind of, but never with a single number.
From a multidimensional intersectional hypothesis of intelligence point of view, the “IQ” should be a series of several hundred measurements; a single number is meaningless. Even then, we still lack a bottom-up theory of intelligence, so all tests are just sociological comparisons as related to a population at a given moment in time.
There are indications that some “basic capability for developing problem solving skills” may exist, but we’re nowhere close to even defining it, much less measuring it.
Somewhat ironically, as we’ve developed AI systems… the only way to train them, has been to use neural networks and a “spray and pray” approach with extra steps, making them into 99% black boxes… so now we can “reproduce some behaviors associated with intelligence”, without being that much closer to understanding it 😆