See how you might like this definition: intelligence, including artificial intelligence (which just means intelligence resting on non-organic materials), means general and arbitrary analogical ability. I think this definition fits what people mean when they say "general mental ability", which I think is what people mean to measure when they use IQ.
I think this is a really good definition of intelligence for communicating what we want to talk about here. And personally I think it's fine to accept a useful definition, even if it is not perfect, and even if its proliferation means some people get unjustly damaged, insofar that the pragmatism of the construct is adequately useful. From there, you have a community tool that can undergo refinement or challenge.
It seems very plausible that we could raise whatever people are trying to invoke when people say words like "intelligence", IQ, g, or arbitrary analogical ability. I'm surprised you are extremely skeptical that we could desirably raise intelligence. Even a noisy and brutish eugenic pressure in the environment would push a population towards a direction, and I'm convinced that this will happen with or without explicit policy.
Isn't that trading one number for one word? I've got to believe that intelligence is multi-dimensional. Its silly to correlate IQ points with genes. E.g. you can probably correlate genes with phone numbers too, but it doesn't mean anything about the individual. Its got more to do with the system that assigned them that IQ. E.g. taller people are perceived as smarter, for no good reason.
I think the general suspicion is that if you go out and develop a multidimensional test, it is quite reasonable to suspect that your test will end up similar to IQ in performance.
Also, I don't think I'm trading one word for another. IQ is a measurement construct that corresponds with a test. General mental ability is thought to be the factor behind performance on an IQ test.
But I think you also wanted a more specific definition to general mental ability, to which I offered "general and arbitrary analogical ability". Speaking speculatively and tangentially, I think such an ability would allow a computer to make causal inferences or write its own drivers for a novel sensory apparatus.
I think this is a really good definition of intelligence for communicating what we want to talk about here. And personally I think it's fine to accept a useful definition, even if it is not perfect, and even if its proliferation means some people get unjustly damaged, insofar that the pragmatism of the construct is adequately useful. From there, you have a community tool that can undergo refinement or challenge.
It seems very plausible that we could raise whatever people are trying to invoke when people say words like "intelligence", IQ, g, or arbitrary analogical ability. I'm surprised you are extremely skeptical that we could desirably raise intelligence. Even a noisy and brutish eugenic pressure in the environment would push a population towards a direction, and I'm convinced that this will happen with or without explicit policy.