Lifeboat Foundation

From every study they could find, including research that was never published, research by the military and private businesses, and research that had sat dormant on hard drives for decades to find out how personality and intelligence relate to each another.⁠
⁠
Fourteen years later, the massive data catalog has dropped. It contains 79 personality traits and 97 cognitive abilities from 1,300 studies from over 50 countries including over 2 million participants. And an early meta-analysis published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that personality and intelligence relate in some surprising ways.⁠
⁠
Personality describes how someone generally thinks, feels, and behaves. Intelligence (termed cognitive ability by the researchers) describes how well someone can understand and apply information.⁠
⁠
Here are 3 of the 5 findings:⁠
⁠
1. Extraversion, a measure of sociality and enthusiasm, was only negligibly related to intelligence overall. However, the activity facet more strongly correlated, and (surprisingly) sociability had a small negative relationship with some cognitive abilities. ⁠
⁠
2. Neuroticism encompasses negative emotionality, which can inhibit advanced thinking. Despite the trope of the moody genius, perhaps it’s no surprise that higher levels of neuroticism predicted lower levels of intelligence, albeit weakly. The uneven temper and depression facets were particularly strong predictors of decreased intelligence. ⁠
⁠
3. Conscientiousness, a measure of self-regulation and orderliness, correlated positively with intelligence overall. But some facets, including cautiousness and routine seeking, predicted lower cognitive abilities.⁠
⁠
For the rest of the findings, along with something interesting they learned about extraversion, click here: https://www.freethink.com/society/study-personality-intellig…jjjrtebdkm.

Article by Elizabeth Gilbert.

https://ie.social/NYB0d

This post is also available in: עברית (Hebrew)

Researchers from the University of Waterloo’s Faculty of Engineering are developing a first-of-its-kind innovative system against fake news that relies on blockchain. Their goal? A world where people have greater trust in the news they see and hear.

It is already known that disinformation – especially digitally created – poses a great threat to democracy. There is evidence fake news could have influenced important world events like Brexit, the 2016 US elections, the Russia-Ukraine war, etc. Big tech companies like Facebook and Google have been trying to establish policies to prevent the spread of disinformation on their platforms, with limited success.

Jailbroken large language models (LLMs) and generative AI chatbots — the kind any hacker can access on the open Web — are capable of providing in-depth, accurate instructions for carrying out large-scale acts of destruction, including bio-weapons attacks.

An alarming new study from RAND, the US nonprofit think tank, offers a canary in the coal mine for how bad actors might weaponize this technology in the (possibly near) future.

In an experiment, experts asked an uncensored LLM to plot out theoretical biological weapons attacks against large populations. The AI algorithm was detailed in its response and more than forthcoming in its advice on how to cause the most damage possible, and acquire relevant chemicals without raising suspicion.

Scientists have engineered bacteria that can detect DNA with KRAS mutations that has been released by tumors, a new study shows.

The South Florida health system is testing an AI-powered system it expects to score big wins for its providers, improving the patient experience along the way.

Targeted therapy is a type of cancer treatment that targets the changes in cancer cells that help them grow, divide, and spread. Learn how targeted therapy works against cancer and about side effects that may occur.

AI couldn’t necessarily provide instructions for how to create a bioweapon but could bridge gaps in knowledge that have soiled previous attempts.

“For AI to be motivated towards a goal, it must know what it wants.”

The possible board combinations in a game of Go are more than the number of atoms in the known universe, but it’s still a finite number. In the real world, there are infinite possibilities for what might happen next, and uncertainty is rampant. How realistic, then, is AGI?

A recent research paper published in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution explores obstacles toward AGI. Biological systems with degrees of general intelligence — organisms ranging from the humble microbes to the humans reading this — are capable of improvising to meet their goals. What prevents AI from improvising?