LLMs are solving MCAT, the bar test, SAT etc like they’re nothing. At this point their performance is super human. However they’ll often trip on super simple common sense questions, they’ll struggle with creative thinking.

Is this literally proof that standard tests are not a good measure of intelligence?

  • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    There has been plenty of proof that standardized testing doesn’t work long before ChatGTP ever existed. Institutions will keep using them though because that’s what they’ve always done and change is hard

    • underwire212@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Not disagreeing with you; how do you suggest a way for admissions to reliably compare applicants with each other? A 3.5 at one school can mean something completely different than a 3.5 at another school.

      Something like the SAT is far from perfect, but it is a way one number that means the same thing across applicants.

      • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        There shouldn’t even be admission based on what you score in some random test. My (non-US) university accepted everyone who applied, at least for my field of study. Does that mean many people drop out after a semester or two? Absolutely, but there are countless people completing their studies who would have never gotten a chance to do so otherwise. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to prove themselves?

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Intelligence cannot be measured. It’s a reification fallacy. Inelegance is colloquial and subjective.

    If I told you that I had an instrument that could objectively measure beauty, you’d see the problem right away.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      But intelligence is the capacity to solve problems. If you can solve problems quickly, you are by definition intelligent.

      the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)

      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligence

      It can be measured by objective tests. It’s not subjective like beauty or humor.

      The problem with AI doing these tests is that it has seen and memorized all the previous questions and answers. Many of the tests mentioned are not tests of reasoning, but recall: the bar exam, for example.

      If any random person studied every previous question and answer, they would do well too. No one would be amazed that an answer key knew all the answers.

      • yesman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        This is a semantic argument.

        Have you never felt smarter or dumber depending on the situation? If so, did your ability to think abstractly, apply knowledge, or manipulate your environment change? Intelligence is subjective (and colloquial) like beauty and humor.