That's r = 0.81 right? so R2 would then be ~.66. Meaning that 66% of the variation in IQ scores can be statistically explained by variation in SAT scores.
It's really high for psych stuff. If you even get r=0.5, you've got a great result there.
But it is important to note, I feel, that SAT maps to only about 2/3 parts of the IQ score, and IQ score is also a quite fuzzy measure here for things like knowledge work job performance.
I do agree though, you get quite a bang for your buck just reporting these numbers.
But, if you explicitly tie money and compensation to the SAT score, man, that is setting up some very perverse incentives around it. If it adopts widely to do so, then you're gonna get some really strange interaction effects there.
We've banned this account for crossing into personal attack. That's not allowed here.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Anecdotally in my org (low down biotech), the AI users are quite few.
Of those that use AI, most have finally cleared out their backlogs that were just never ending before AI. That took about 3 years to accomplish.
Now they have the time to do more ambitious projects. And many are doing just that.
I do not see AI taking jobs, I see it more as everyone got a great secretary/junior to offload 'busy' work onto.
Think of even the lower level employees now having access to some of the time saving labor that the old robber barons and fat cats had with legions of secretaries and go-get-em younguns.
Time will tell what becomes of all this, it still very early days, but I mostly see the effects of AI in my current life as like a tool. A great multi-tool, sure, but still just a tool.
> I do not see AI taking jobs, I see it more as everyone got a great secretary/junior to offload 'busy' work onto.
I’m afraid that your perspective is flawed. There are many jobs whose output can’t be enhanced by offloading certain tasks to improve productivity - the output itself is replaced by AI.
For instance, a family member who is a successful freelance illustrator and whose field has dramatically shrank with the introduction of image generation. They don’t need a secretary, they need clients. The same clients that now are happy to replace 50%-80% of their demand with AI-generated imagery.
Academic Science in the U.S. was pretty ill and needed a lot of reforms. We can all admit that.
But this solution is absolutely not the way to go about doing that.
From my psuedo-outsider [0] perspective, the capable and good people are fleeing or being forced out, but the jerks and asshats that were ruining it all are staying. If you thought in the late 2010s that we were boiling low tide in the ivory tower, then today we're just concentrating raw sewage. The abuse cases are exploding among grad students, anecdotally.
[0] I have a lot of friends and family in academia
Serious question here: Can we trust these numbers out of this admin? I've not been super plugged into the latest news out of the BLS, but I seem to remember a lot of political firings in the 'econ' part of the government.
I do not mean to be glib here either or start a flame war. I am genuinely asking.
It's currently headed by a pretty by-the-books guy, after a series of trump loyalists were rejected. Next up for nomination is another boring career professional, who actually pushed back against trumps bullshit and survived.
I made a scraper that searches through all the news and finds anything 'war' related. It then summarizes it and give me that new in the Star Wars crawl with music.
I love Bret. His outreach work is exactly my cup of tea.
It is unfortunate that the Ivory Tower can't recognize it though. His path to tenure is closed at this point. Yet any school would have a gem if they prompted him.
His star really is rising and his reach is widening. I can;t wait until he gives up the ghost and decides to go to some think tank or another and really makes the dough.
I've got mixed feelings on AI assistance. I'll relate 2 anecdotes.
1 - When I was in grad school (before AI), we had to use Canvas for a class. One day, I got an obvious spam/phishing email in the internal Canvas system. It was so strange. The writer just would randomly hit the capslock button and keep typing away, no salutation, no signature, just a real mess. They were asking for a particular professor to come to their house to teach them about ... something? Again, real strange.
So, I email IT and say 'Hey, somehow a spammer got into the system, do your thing'.
They email back and go 'Nope, it's a student, that somehow managed to CC the entire system, sorry about that'.
Dear Reader, the message was pure garbage. Literally, it looked liked it was written by a 3rd grader without any shame. [0]
I happened to know the professor of the class. So later on, I talked with them over symposium coffee about it. They said that they remembered that particular email because of all the IT back and forth. It was for an upperdivision class in the Engineering department. The email itself was not particularly notable otherwise. In that, they saw such emails all the time, in terms of quality. This was a top 100 ranked (whatever that means) university, by the by.
Shocking.
2 - My grandfather was an officer and a mechanic for the USAF. A bit of an odd combo, but he was partly responsible for instituting many preventative maintenance checks and protocols, novel in those early days of the AF. His aptitude and memory were quite sharp for many mechanical things. Until the strokes from decades of smoking caught up, he could tell you exact measurements and torque values for a variety of airplane related things (I can no longer remember what exactly, the memory skills did not transfer to me).
I do vividly remember standing in that light blue garage of his and him all but yelling at me once. We were looking at the brakes on an old car he was 'restoring' (getting away from Grandma for a little bit). He pointed at the old drum brakes on the axel.
He asked me how tight the pads should be on the inner rim of it.
I had no idea.
So he asked where I might find out.
I figured I'd ask him.
But what if Grandpa wasn't there?
We'll I'd have to look it up somewhere (they had no internet).
Fantastic. Now, what about the next time you're working on the brakes?
Well, just make sure that the pads are at that spec.
And that when Grandpa hit me with the nugget of hard won wisdom: No, you look it up every time. Because these are brakes, and if you are wrong then they might fail, and they might fail when the driver has their whole family in the car at 100 mph. And then because you were lazy, half a dozen people die.
---
These two times stand in my head when it comes to AI.
For the first one, yes, AI would be such a boon to that very clearly struggling student reaching out for help. It would get them back on the path to the real struggle of getting their degree. That level of assistance would be like a wheelchair to a paraplegic.
For the second anecdote, AI is condemning people to death. Using it in life critical situations and care, letting it hallucinate or skip over critical values, that's a recipe for disaster.
Where do we set the fine line of using AI and not? For brakes and X-ray machines, obviously not. For helping kids learn to write emails correctly? Sure, sounds great.
Unfortunately, I feel the old adage about regulations is going to be true here like it is with every new technology: The rules are written in blood.
[0] therh lasdkjenail EMAil was sposmkehting alLIKE HTIS IN THE WAYS THAT IS aw adklhjf writtene sand htenn. sned t sent ASLAOSNG ASLIONG ALONG TO NTHE recipentnts .
> We will soon have to brace ourselves for an absolute draconian level of tracking.
Somehow this reminds me of the old adage in finance :"The optimal amount of fraud is not 0"
Meaning that you could of course come up with a system in your accounting or banking or stocks or whatever that is totally 100% fraud proof.
But that system would be so onerous that none would use it. They'd go back to a more fraudulent system that is easier. Like, 15 retinal scans, a blood draw, and a bank approved minder just to buy a taco isn't workable, duh.
I'd say the same here too. You can of course use AIs and LLMs to figure out exactly how much work a person is doing and try to optimize them down to the second. Amazon is currently doing this in their warehouses. Any given month comes up with yet another instance of a worker dying on the floor and people having to continue working around the literal corpse.
And Amazon then has to run through communities, one after another, trying to hire people to work in that system. Their SEC filings note, incredibly, that population exhaustion is a real threat to the workforce.
Thus, the optimal amount of surveillance for an evil megacorp is not 100%.
Draconian, sure. But Amazon is already over the balance point and is trying to squeegee back towards the optimum. So far, it seems to be a lot further back than we thought.
Same principle as too much security. One of the things that contributes to this is that the safety side usually doesn't have any incentive to reign itself in.
There is an old adage for that general idea.
"The treatment should not be worse than the disease"
It's really high for psych stuff. If you even get r=0.5, you've got a great result there.
But it is important to note, I feel, that SAT maps to only about 2/3 parts of the IQ score, and IQ score is also a quite fuzzy measure here for things like knowledge work job performance.
I do agree though, you get quite a bang for your buck just reporting these numbers.
But, if you explicitly tie money and compensation to the SAT score, man, that is setting up some very perverse incentives around it. If it adopts widely to do so, then you're gonna get some really strange interaction effects there.
reply