The figures (150 verbal IQ, etc.) seem to be plucked out of thin air, and the central idea---that there would be an IQ 'threshold' separating people who can be successful/good writers from those who can't---similarly backed by nothing. Where is even a hint of what a mechanism for such a threshold might be?
Trying to show off how smart one is is probably part of the motivation behind many interesting comments posted on here, and more generally, a big motivation behind a huge number of the useful things people do. Doing it in a non-obvious way requires additional ingenuity. The cumulative effect of people trying to show off how smart they are has undoubtedly greatly accelerated the development of our species.
Then let us not descend to the level of our inferiors but maintain an intelligent standard of discussion. There is no reason to cry whataboutism which is what you are doing here in a roundabout way.
1. what you're describing as a "file" is really no different from a "password". I assume you're choosing to call it a "file" because you're picturing generating some huge blob, but a randomly generated password doesn't need to be very long to be effectively uncrackable, so I think you're proposing wasting time/bandwidth for no added security.
surely being able to construct a turing-complete computing device is a sufficient condition to qualify as general intelligence, and it seems like a reasonable bar for considering a purported intelligent agent as interesting.
> It seems foolish to me to search for something when we can't even define it.
This is backwards. The vast majority of concepts outside mathematics are pretty hard to rigorously define. The way we approach the problem of trying to find a sensible definition is by searching for examples and counterexamples and performing induction.
This post seems almost completely vacuous to me.
I guess you could read it to mean that if a person cheats, there must be some "societal problem" causing it. That would seem to imply you believe society could in principle be 'fixed' s.t. no one is ever incentivized to cheat. Is that what you mean?
Or simply, s.t. fewer people are incentivized to cheat. In that case, duh. But fewer to what extent? And are there any actual constructive suggestions forthcoming?