[_heimdall]

> smart people generally earn more.

> there's been a widespread belief that being wealthy is the proof of superiority.

Both of these are assumptions though, and working in the reverse order. Its one thing to expect that intelligence will lead to higher value outcomes and entirely different to expect that higher value outcomes prove intelligence.

It seems reasonable that higher intelligence, combined with the incentives if a capitalist system, will lead to higher intelligence people getting more wealthy. They learn to play the game and find ways to "win."

It seems unreasonable to assume that anyone or anything that "wins" in that system much be more intelligent. Said differently, intelligence may lead to wealth but wealth doesn't imply intelligence.

[ben_w]

I think we're in agreement? I'm saying their measure in this case is no worse than any other, but not that it's a fundamental truth.

All the other things — chess, Jeopardy, composing music, painting, maths, languages, passing medical or law degrees — they're also all things which were considered signs of intelligence until AI got good at them.

Goodhart's law keeps tripping us up on the concept of intelligence.

[_heimdall]

> I think we're in agreement? I'm saying their measure in this case is no worse than any other, but not that it's a fundamental truth.

Maybe we are? I think I lost the thread a bit here.

> chess, Jeopardy, composing music, painting, maths, languages, passing medical or law degrees

That's interesting, I would have still chalked skill in those areas as a sign of intelligence and didn't realize most people wouldn't once AI (or ML) could do it. To me an AI/LLM/ML being good at those is at least a sign that they have gotten good at mimicking intelligence if nothing else, and a sign that we really are getting out over our skis risking these tools without knowing how they really work.