It is like we have unlocked an entirely new category of stereotyping that we never even realized existed.
Intelligence is not a prerequisite to speak fancifully.
Some other examples:
1. We generally assume that lawyers or CEOs or leaders who give well spoken and inspirational speeches actually know anything about what they're talking about.
3. Acting. Actors can easily portray smart characters by reading the right couple sentences off a script. We have no problem with this as an audience member. But CGI is needed for making your superhero character jump off a building without becoming a pancake.
>Intelligence is not a prerequisite to speak fancifully.
I think this may be a bastardization of the word intelligence. To speak fancifully an a manner accepted by the audience requires some kind of ordered information processing and understanding of the audiences taste. Typically we'd consider that intelligent, but likely Machiavellian depending on the intent.
The problem with the word intelligence is it is too big of concept. If you look at any part of our brain, you will not find (human)intelligence itself, instead it emerges from any number of processes occurring at different scales. Until we are able to break down intelligence into these smaller better (but not perfectly) classified pieces we are going to keep running into these same problems over and over again.
I don't think it is possible for people to emulate the behavior of superintelligent beings. In every story about them, they appear to not actually be any smarter than us.
There is one exception - Brainwave by Poul Anderson. He had the only credible (to me) take on what super intelligent people might be like.
Rupert Sheldrake suggests that consciousness is partly about seeing possibilities for our future, evaluating them, and choosing between them. If we make decisions the same way, they change to unconscious habits.
A hungry creature can eat what it sees or stay hungry. Another has more memory and more awareness of different bark and leaves and dead animals to choose from. Another has a better memory of places with safe food in the past and how to get to them. A tool using human can reason down longer chains like 'threaten an enemy and take their food' or 'setup a trap to kill an animal' or 'dig up root, grind root into mash, boil it, eat the gruel'. In that model, a super intelligence might be able to:
- Extract larger patterns from less information. (Con: more risk of a mistake).
- Connect more patterns or more distant patterns together with less obvious connections. (Con: risk of self-delusion).
- Evaluate longer chains of events more accurately with a larger working memory, more accurate mental models. (Con: needs more brain power, more energy, maybe longer time spent in imagination instead of defending self).
- Recall more precise memories more easily. (Con: cost of extra brain to store informaiton and validate memories).
This would be a good model for [fictional] Dr House, he's memorised more illnesses, he's more attentive to observing small details on patients, and more able to use those to connect to existing patterns, and cut through the search space of 'all possible illnesses' to a probable diagnosis based on less information than the other doctors. They run out of ideas quicker, they know fewer diseases, and they can't evaluate as long chains of reasoning from start to conclusion, or make less accurate conclusions. In one episode, House meets a genius physicist/engineer and wants to get his opinion on medical cases, but the physicist declines because he doesn't have the medical training to make any sense of the cases.
It also suggests that extra intelligence might get eaten up by other people - predicting what they will do, while they use their extra intelligence to try to be unpredictable. And it would end up as exciting as a chess final, where both grandmasters sit in silence trying to out-reason their opponent through deeper chains in a larger subset of all possible moves until eventually making a very small move. And from the outside players all seem the same but they can reliably beat me and they cannot reliably beat each other.
Actors have no problem playing smart people, but movie writers often have a LOT of trouble actually writing them. I'm still not sure that something like ChatGPT will be able to actually be clever.
I would also add that the mask is kind of coming off on CEOs and other inspirational speakers. Inspirational speaking is all a grift. They know only how they got rich (if they are even rich - most people on the speaking circuit make less than you think), not how anyone else did, and that knowledge usually doesn't translate well from the past to the future. There are a few exceptions, but most of these well-spoken people don't really know what they're talking about - they're just not self-aware enough to know that they don't know.
Intelligence is not a prerequisite to speak fancifully.
Some other examples:
1. We generally assume that lawyers or CEOs or leaders who give well spoken and inspirational speeches actually know anything about what they're talking about.
2. Well written nonsense papers can fool industry experts even if the expert is trying to apply rigorous review: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
3. Acting. Actors can easily portray smart characters by reading the right couple sentences off a script. We have no problem with this as an audience member. But CGI is needed for making your superhero character jump off a building without becoming a pancake.