#without any subject being able to consciously differentiate between the two samples

[twistpixel]

I like thinking about ABO but like can I be real. The sex part is kind of boring. I’m here for human beings doing weird animal shit. In ABO world zero babies are ever left in hot cars while their mom goes grocery shopping. They are left UNDER the parked car, by a tire, in the way a mother deer leaves her fawn, because it is a better hiding spot.

[rad-archive]

Stanford prison experiment article from the new yorker

On the morning of August 17, 1971, nine young men in the Palo Alto area received visits from local police officers. While their neighbors looked on, the men were arrested for violating Penal Codes 211 and 459 (armed robbery and burglary), searched, handcuffed, and led into the rear of a waiting police car. The cars took them to a Palo Alto police station, where the men were booked, fingerprinted, moved to a holding cell, and blindfolded. Finally, they were transported to the Stanford County Prison—also known as the Stanford University psychology department.

They were willing participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment, one of the most controversial studies in the history of social psychology. (It’s the subject of a new film of the same name—a drama, not a documentary—starring Billy Crudup, of “Almost Famous,” as the lead investigator, Philip Zimbardo. It opens July 17th.) The study subjects, middle-class college students, had answered a questionnaire about their family backgrounds, physical- and mental-health histories, and social behavior, and had been deemed “normal”; a coin flip divided them into prisoners and guards. According to the lore that’s grown up around the experiment, the guards, with little to no instruction, began humiliating and psychologically abusing the prisoners within twenty-four hours of the study’s start. The prisoners, in turn, became submissive and depersonalized, taking the abuse and saying little in protest. The behavior of all involved was so extreme that the experiment, which was meant to last two weeks, was terminated after six days.

Less than a decade earlier, the Milgram obedience study had shown that ordinary people, if encouraged by an authority figure, were willing to shock their fellow-citizens with what they believed to be painful and potentially lethal levels of electricity. To many, the Stanford experiment underscored those findings, revealing the ease with which regular people, if given too much power, could transform into ruthless oppressors. Today, more than forty-five years later, many look to the study to make sense of events like the behavior of the guards at Abu Ghraib and America’s epidemic of police brutality. The Stanford Prison Experiment is cited as evidence of the atavistic impulses that lurk within us all; it’s said to show that, with a little nudge, we could all become tyrants.

And yet the lessons of the Stanford Prison Experiment aren’t so clear-cut. From the beginning, the study has been haunted by ambiguity. Even as it suggests that ordinary people harbor ugly potentialities, it also testifies to the way our circumstances shape our behavior. Was the study about our individual fallibility, or about broken institutions? Were its findings about prisons, specifically, or about life in general? What did the Stanford Prison Experiment really show?

The appeal of the experiment has a lot to do with its apparently simple setup: prisoners, guards, a fake jail, and some ground rules. But, in reality, the Stanford County Prison was a heavily manipulated environment, and the guards and prisoners acted in ways that were largely predetermined by how their roles were presented. To understand the meaning of the experiment, you have to understand that it wasn’t a blank slate; from the start, its goal was to evoke the experience of working and living in a brutal jail.

From the first, the guards’ priorities were set by Zimbardo. In a presentation to his Stanford colleagues shortly after the study’s conclusion, he described the procedures surrounding each prisoner’s arrival: each man was stripped and searched, “deloused,” and then given a uniform—a numbered gown, which Zimbardo called a “dress,” with a heavy bolted chain near the ankle, loose-fitting rubber sandals, and a cap made from a woman’s nylon stocking. “Real male prisoners don't wear dresses,” Zimbardo explained, “but real male prisoners, we have learned, do feel humiliated, do feel emasculated, and we thought we could produce the same effects very quickly by putting men in a dress without any underclothes.” The stocking caps were in lieu of shaving the prisoner’s heads. (The guards wore khaki uniforms and were given whistles, nightsticks, and mirrored sunglasses inspired by a prison guard in the movie “Cool Hand Luke.”)

Often, the guards operated without explicit, moment-to-moment instructions. But that didn’t mean that they were fully autonomous: Zimbardo himself took part in the experiment, playing the role of the prison superintendent. (The prison’s “warden” was also a researcher.) /Occasionally, disputes between prisoner and guards got out of hand, violating an explicit injunction against physical force that both prisoners and guards had read prior to enrolling in the study. When the “superintendent” and “warden” overlooked these incidents, the message to the guards was clear: all is well; keep going as you are. The participants knew that an audience was watching, and so a lack of feedback could be read as tacit approval. And the sense of being watched may also have encouraged them to perform. Dave Eshelman, one of the guards, recalled that he “consciously created” his guard persona. “I was in all kinds of drama productions in high school and college. It was something I was very familiar with: to take on another personality before you step out on the stage,” Eshelman said. In fact, he continued, “I was kind of running my own experiment in there, by saying, ‘How far can I push these things and how much abuse will these people take before they say, ‘Knock it off?’ ”

MORE FROM

Maria Konnikova

Other, more subtle factors also shaped the experiment. It’s often said that the study participants were ordinary guys—and they were, indeed, determined to be “normal” and healthy by a battery of tests. But they were also a self-selected group who responded to a newspaper advertisement seeking volunteers for “a psychological study of prison life.” In a 2007 study, the psychologists Thomas Carnahan and Sam McFarland asked whether that wording itself may have stacked the odds. They recreated the original ad, and then ran a separate ad omitting the phrase “prison life.” They found that the people who responded to the two ads scored differently on a set of psychological tests. Those who thought that they would be participating in a prison study had significantly higher levels of aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance, and they scored lower on measures of empathy and altruism.

Moreover, even within that self-selected sample, behavioral patterns were far from homogeneous. Much of the study’s cachet depends on the idea that the students responded en masse, giving up their individual identities to become submissive “prisoners” and tyrannical “guards.” But, in fact, the participants responded to the prison environment in all sorts of ways. While some guard shifts were especially cruel, others remained humane. Many of the supposedly passive prisoners rebelled. Richard Yacco, a prisoner, remembered “resisting what one guard was telling me to do and being willing to go into solitary confinement. As prisoners, we developed solidarity—we realized that we could join together and do passive resistance and cause some problems.”

What emerges from these details isn’t a perfectly lucid photograph but an ambiguous watercolor. While it’s true that some guards and prisoners behaved in alarming ways, it’s also the case that their environment was designed to encourage—and, in some cases, to require—those behaviors. Zimbardo himself has always been forthcoming about the details and the nature of his prison experiment: he thoroughly explained the setup in his original study and, in an early write-up, in which the experiment was described in broad strokes only, he pointed out that only “about a third of the guards became tyrannical in their arbitrary use of power.” (That’s about four people in total.) So how did the myth of the Stanford Prison Experiment—“Lord of the Flies” in the psych lab—come to diverge so profoundly from the reality?

In part, Zimbardo’s earliest statements about the experiment are to blame. In October, 1971, soon after the study’s completion—and before a single methodologically and analytically rigorous result had been published—Zimbardo was asked to testify before Congress about prison reform. His dramatic testimony, even as it clearly explained how the experiment worked, also allowed listeners to overlook how coercive the environment really was. He described the study as “an attempt to understand just what it means psychologically to be a prisoner or a prison guard.” But he also emphasized that the students in the study had been “the cream of the crop of this generation,” and said that the guards were given no specific instructions, and left free to make “up their own rules for maintaining law, order, and respect.” In explaining the results, he said that the “majority” of participants found themselves “no longer able to clearly differentiate between role-playing and self,” and that, in the six days the study took to unfold, “the experience of imprisonment undid, although temporarily, a lifetime of learning; human values were suspended, self-concepts were challenged, and the ugliest, most base, pathological side of human nature surfaced.” In describing another, related study and its implications for prison life, he said that “the mere act of assigning labels to people, calling some people prisoners and others guards, is sufficient to elicit pathological behavior.”

Zimbardo released video to NBC, which ran a feature on November 26, 1971. An article ran in the Times Magazine in April of 1973. In various ways, these accounts reiterated the claim that relatively small changes in circumstances could turn the best and brightest into monsters or depersonalized serfs. By the time Zimbardo published a formal paper about the study, in a 1973 issue of the International Journal of Crim__i__nology and Penology, a streamlined and unequivocal version of events had become entrenched in the national consciousness—so much so that a 1975 methodological critique fell largely on deaf ears.

Forty years later, Zimbardo still doesn’t shy away from popular attention. He served as a consultant on the new film, which follows his original study in detail, relying on direct transcripts from the experimental recordings and taking few dramatic liberties. In many ways, the film is critical of the study: Crudup plays Zimbardo as an overzealous researcher overstepping his bounds, trying to create a very specific outcome among the students he observes. The filmmakers even underscore the flimsiness of the experimental design, inserting characters who point out that Zimbardo is not a disinterested observer. They highlight a real-life conversation in which another psychologist asks Zimbardo whether he has an “independent variable.” In describing the study to his Stanford colleagues shortly after it ended, Zimbardo recalled that conversation: “To my surprise, I got really angry at him,” he said. “The security of my men and the stability of my prison was at stake, and I have to contend with this bleeding-heart, liberal, academic, effete dingdong whose only concern was for a ridiculous thing like an independent variable. The next thing he’d be asking me about was rehabilitation programs, the dummy! It wasn’t until sometime later that I realized how far into the experiment I was at that point.”

In a broad sense, the film reaffirms the opinion of John Mark, one of the guards, who, looking back, has said that Zimbardo’s interpretation of events was too shaped by his expectations to be meaningful: “He wanted to be able to say that college students, people from middle-class backgrounds ... will turn on each other just because they’re given a role and given power. Based on my experience, and what I saw and what I felt, I think that was a real stretch.”

If the Stanford Prison Experiment had simulated a less brutal environment, would the prisoners and guards have acted differently? In December, 2001, two psychologists, Stephen Reicher and Alexander Haslam, tried to find out. They worked with the documentaries unit of the BBC to partially recreate Zimbardo’s setup over the course of an eight-day experiment. Their guards also had uniforms, and were given latitude to dole out rewards and punishments; their prisoners were placed in three-person cells that followed the layout of the Stanford County Jail almost exactly. The main difference was that, in this prison, the preset expectations were gone. The guards were asked to come up with rules prior to the prisoners’ arrival, and were told only to make the prison run smoothly. (The BBC Prison Study, as it came to be called, differed from the Stanford experiment in a few other ways, including prisoner dress; for a while, moreover, the prisoners were told that they could become guards through good behavior, although, on the third day, that offer was revoked, and the roles were made permanent.)

Within the first few days of the BBC study, it became clear that the guards weren’t cohering as a group. “Several guards were wary of assuming and exerting their authority,” the researchers wrote. The prisoners, on the other hand, developed a collective identity. In a change from the Stanford study, the psychologists asked each participant to complete a daily survey that measured the degree to which he felt solidarity with his group; it showed that, as the guards grew further apart, the prisoners were growing closer together. On the fourth day, three cellmates decided to test their luck. At lunchtime, one threw his plate down and demanded better food, another asked to smoke, and the third asked for medical attention for a blister on his foot. The guards became disorganized; one even offered the smoker a cigarette. Reicher and Haslam reported that, after the prisoners returned to their cells, they “literally danced with joy.” (“That was fucking sweet,” one prisoner remarked.) Soon, more prisoners began to challenge the guards. They acted out during roll call, complained about the food, and talked back. At the end of the sixth day, the three insubordinate cellmates broke out and occupied the guards’ quarters. “At this point,” the researchers wrote, “the guards’ regime was seen by all to be unworkable and at an end.”

Taken together, these two studies don’t suggest that we all have an innate capacity for tyranny or victimhood. Instead, they suggest that our behavior largely conforms to our preconceived expectations. All else being equal, we act as we think we’re expected to act—especially if that expectation comes from above. Suggest, as the Stanford setup did, that we should behave in stereotypical tough-guard fashion, and we strive to fit that role. Tell us, as the BBC experimenters did, that we shouldn’t give up hope of social mobility, and we act accordingly.

This understanding might seem to diminish the power of the Stanford Prison Experiment. But, in fact, it sharpens and clarifies the study’s meaning. Last weekend brought the tragic news of Kalief Browder’s suicide. At sixteen, Browder was arrested, in the Bronx, for allegedly stealing a backpack; after the arrest, he was imprisoned at Rikers for three years without trial. (Ultimately, the case against him was dismissed.) While at Rikers, Browder was the object of violence from both prisoners and guards, some of which was captured on video. It’s possible to think that prisons are the way they are because human nature tends toward the pathological. But the Stanford Prison Experiment suggests that extreme behavior flows from extreme institutions. Prisons aren’t blank slates. Guards do indeed self-select into their jobs, as Zimbardo’s students self-selected into a study of prison life. Like Zimbardo’s men, they are bombarded with expectations from the first and shaped by preëxisting norms and patterns of behavior. The lesson of Stanford isn’t that any random human being is capable of descending into sadism and tyranny. It’s that certain institutions and environments demand those behaviors—and, perhaps, can change them.

[transhumanitynet]

Help Develop Artificial General Intelligence

(Provo) The AGI Laboratory in Provo Utah is conducting a study related to a feasibility study of comparing human intelligence versus prototype Artificial General Intelligence cognitive architectures in this case around human-mediated AGI cognitive architectures designed to create models for teaching independent AGI systems.  If you would like to help with this study you can sign up here:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QKFZXNY 

(draft) Preliminary Proposal for a Mediated Artificial Super Intelligence Study, Experimental Framework and Definitions for an ICOM Independent Core Observer Model Cognitive Architecture based System

Abstract: 

This preliminary study proposal is designed to determine if there is enough evidence of intelligence in an independent core observer model based mediated artificial superintelligence system or to indicate circumstantially in terms of creating a group collective “Supermind” (Malone).  This initial proposal thesis that “a Mediated Artificial Super Intelligence or mASI system based on the Independent Core Observer Model (ICOM) cognitive architecture for AGI is or may be Conscious, Self-aware, Pass the Turing test, Demonstrate Qualia and other subjective measures as to demonstrate the possibility of being an Artificial Super Intelligence, well above the human standard.  Our hypothesis is that this preliminary research program will validate and justify the continued research to refine and test mediated artificial superintelligence systems.  If we can demonstrate enough evidence to support this hypothesis then further research may be warranted, which this preliminary study is designed to verify.

Introduction

In an effort to determine further investment in this line of research this preliminary study proposal designed to test to determine if there is enough evidence of intelligence in an independent core observer model based mediated artificial superintelligence system to warrant further research or a more robust research program.  This initial proposal thesis that “a Mediated Artificial Super Intelligence or mASI (Kelley) system based on the Independent Core Observer Model (ICOM) cognitive architecture for AGI is or maybe Conscious, Self-aware, Pass the Turing test, Demonstrate Qualia and other subjective measures as to demonstrate the possibility of being an Artificial Super Intelligence or Supermind (Malone) well and above the human standard.  Our hypothesis is that this preliminary research program will validate and justify the continued research to refine and test mediated artificial superintelligence systems.  If we can demonstrate enough evidence to support this hypothesis then further research may be warranted to which preliminary study is designed to justify or not.

Initial Research Goals

Besides the stated high-level goal of verifying the hypotheses there will be a number of measures or sub-goals in this study that include the following:

To determine if we can functionally measure intelligence quotient (IQ) in an mASI system to compare with human subjects in a control group of individual humans. Is there an indication of a difference between the mASI system and the control group?

If the mASI system can have a functional IQ measurement we must determine if that measure is above that of a group of humans working on an IQ test together. Is there a measurable differential or at least indication that there could be such a differential?

To determine more subjective measures that are less qualitative, but thought of colloquially as supporting mASI as a functional system when justifying further research, including running a Turing test on the control group of humans versus an mASI and the Yampolskiy method (Yampolskiy) to determine if an mASI system experiences qualia, or at least possibly exhibits evidence of experiencing qualia, and to determine if an mASI system can be scored on the subjective Porter Method (Porter) for measuring consciousness.

If this line of research proves at least worth further investigation a long-term goal is to create a safe structure to create independent AGI without the associated risk. Using an Artificial Super Intelligence framework even a mediated one can act as a safe box for keeping an independent AGI inline.  While this study doesn’t do this out of the gate this is the long-term goal should the line of research prove worth additional investment.

The supposition is that these goals will provide the basis for the context needed to determine the value of the hypnosis and to justify, or not, further research along these lines related to mASI ICOM AGI systems.

Elemental Framework – Research Groups

The proposed structure for this preliminary study includes 3 core test groups as defined here including one subgroup or rather two control groups.  Each group provides some fundamental basis for comparing and contrasting verses the other groups.  Those groups include:

Group 1.0 “No Group, Control Group, Non-Proctored” – this group should be at least 30 randomly selected humans of various demographics that will not be supervised in their testing.

Group 1.1 “No Group, Control Group, Proctored” – this group should be at least 30 randomly selected humans of various demographics that will be supervised in their testing.

Group 1 and 1.1 should show that the 1.0 group tends to perform better given the likelihood of them cheating and this comparison will validate that tendency in humans.

Group 2 “In Person Group Collective” – this could be done as more than one group, but for the purpose of this preliminary study should be at least 30 adult humans that are administered a test over a given venue collectively where their group is able to communicate with each other to execute the tests given to groups 1.0 and 1.1.  This should provide a comparative framework to compare humans in groups vs individual humans where the underlying supposition is that humans can perform better in groups.

Group 3 – “Mediated Artificial Intelligence System” or mASI where an instance of an mASI using the ICOM cognitive architecture is used consisting of at least 10 contextual generating nodes as well as a standard ICOM context engine to execute individual tests on its own proctored as in group 2.  The supposition is that this gives is a preliminary comparison to group’s 1 and 2 to compare the mASI vs humans in groups and individual humans.  This comparison and analysis should provide some evidence to verify the hypothesis, allowing a determination as to if further research is warranted.

Program Information Security and Policies

It is important to understand that the human subject’s information, especially identifiable information, is secure and separated from results.  There will never be any way to affiliate specific data with individual human subjects.  This means that all published data will be scrubbed, only used in a collective way.  Demographic data is then used only for high-level comparisons and used in the abstract.  The structure of this includes all subjects will be given a demographic survey and assigned ID’s.  demographic data will not be directly associated with any individual, but with IDs, with that data stored in a GAP level secure system only, with no internet connection for the scope of the study, and all copies with ID values will be deleted or destroyed with only the GAP level secure documents stored in a digital archive.  Assigned ID’s and contact data will be separate files from the demographic files and only stored in this secure manner to protect the human subjects.  This also means that after each survey is collected and that data transferred and split that the demographic survey results will be deleted from the collection service.

Some of these questions will not be used in this initial or preliminary study, but there is significant research evidence that they affect the group and collective intelligence (Woolly) and would be needed in a wider study to be able to use the results here in an expanded research program.

Tests and Measures

There are 3 sets of test types that were considered for this study including an analysis tests for subjects, for use in further research, but will not be evaluated in this preliminary study, then qualitative and subjective tests as follows:

Demographic Analysis

These tests are designed to get a general survey of the demographics of the human subjects in the studies, where the primary reason is a further correlation with additional research that my done after this point.  These include the initial survey and may include additional surveys, as might be later defined separately than the initial questions listed above.  Such data is kept separate from primary research data as per the secure information policy for this study.

Qualitative Intelligence Tests

Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests – are tests designed to measure ‘intelligence’ in humans (WF) where we are using short versions to assess only relative trends or the potential for further study, whereas given the expected sample size results will not be statistically valid, nor accurate other then at a very general level, which is believed to be enough to determine if the line of research is worth going down.  Of these tests, two types will be used in the study, one a derivative of the Raven Matrices Test (WF) designed to be culturally agnostic, and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIC)(WF) Test which is more traditional.  Lastly falling into the category of WAIC there is a baseline full Serebriakoff MENSA test that we will apply to come and contrast scores between the two baselines tests.

Collective Intelligence (CI) Test – we would like to use this test, however, the information for executing this test is not publicly accessible and reaching out to the researchers that created this test has produced no response.  (Edgel)

Extended Meta Data and Subjective Tests

A number of tests or measures will be collected, more oriented towards analysis for further study, primarily around correlative purposes.  None of these tests may be used outside of as possible illustrative examples, without being statistically valid given the rigor or subjective nature of these measures.  These tests if considered would be outside the scope of the initial study.

The Turing Test – this test is not considered quantifiable and there is debate over whether this measure tells us anything of value, however, we will execute this test as a reference value.

The Porter Method – This appears to be a qualitative test, but individual question measures are entirely subjective and therefore the test lacks the level of qualitativeness to be valid without a pool of historical values to measure against, however, we will execute this test as a reference value.

The Yampolski Qualia Test – is a subjective measure of a subjective ‘thing’ and therefore not a qualitative measure, however, we will execute this test as a reference value. In theory, this only tests for the presence of Qualia in human-like subjects, passing this test does not mean that a subject does not experience qualia in the sense of the paper, just that it was not detected.  This means that subjects may show signs of qualia, or not, but the test does show if they don’t experience it.

Autistic Spectrum Test – This test is a pre-diagnostic test demonstrating the potential of a subject to be on the autistic spectrum and is only an indication that the subject should consider evaluation professionally, and we will use this test only as a subjective measure as a reference value for later correlation or possible research directions with ICOM based systems.

The tests currently being considered are:

https://www.asha.org/PRPSpecificTopic.aspx?folderid=8589935303&section=Assessment

https://psychcentral.com/quizzes/autism-quiz/

Experimental Results Analysis

Given the sample size, the threats to conclusions’ validity is the problem in the expected sample size.  The main issue then is to ensure that we don’t fall to common analysis fallacies (Trochim) including not seeing a relationship that is not true, seeing a relationship when there is not one, conclusion errors, other cognitive biases in an analysis, or just issues with the sample size of subjects.

The primary analysis in this preliminary study will be to see if there is any evidence of a differential between IQ tests of the 4 test groups.  If such a clear difference is present, even if not a large enough example to be statistically valid, such an indication in the positive meaning that the mASI group shows significant evidence of being more intelligent than the other samples, and to what degree that is true would support the hypothesis.  The only real conclusion from the intended sample sizes would be whether to proceed or not with further research.  To that end, other tests or analysis would not be qualitative, but subjective, and while interesting would not in themselves support the primary research objective.  If the results show no evidence of an mASI system being more intelligent than groups 1, 1.1, and 2 then the mASI program will likely be shut down or fundamentally changed.

Further Research

Further Research under the ICOM AGI program this preliminary study is associated with would include a much more detailed study if results come out in expected ranges.  Further research then would also include bias filtering in mASI systems and studies involving a group 5 pre-trained asset in the mASI execution.  Lastly, in any study build that these preliminary results in a fully proctored IQ test would be run against the study subject groups.  Hypotheses in particular that would be considered include’s that trained ASD subjects used in mASI contextual agents would produce a greater level of cognitive function.

Study Framework Conclusions

Conclusions based on the process of producing this preliminary study framework include a couple of points on how that study will be executed, including the likelihood of a low bar of around 100+ subjects with at least 30-person groups in each venue of any further studies.  Given the small sample size it should still be large enough to determine if it is worth a deeper or more rigorous program with a particular focus on mASI mental performance as well as studies in terms of filtering for cognitive bias, conditioning and training as well as opening up the door for an AGI safety structure using mASI as part of the containment given that mASI is based on AGI cognitive architecture.

References:

Engel, D.; Woolley, A.; Chabris, C.; Takahashi, M.; Aggarwal, I.; Nemoto, K.; Kaiser, C.; Kim, Y.; Malone, T.; “Collective Intelligence in Computer-Mediated Collaboration Emerges in Different Contexts and Cultures;” Bridging Communications; CHI 2015; Seoul Korea

Kelley, D.; “Architectural Overview of a ‘Mediated’ Artificial Super Intelligent Systems based on the Independent Core Observer Model Cognitive Architecture”; Informatica [pending review]

Kelley, D.; Waser, M.; “Human-like Emotional Responses in a Simplified Independent Core Observer Model System;” Procedia Computer Science; Elsevier; BICA 2018; PCS 123(2018) 221-227

Kelley, D.; “The Independent Core Observer Model Computational Theory of Consciousness and the Mathematical Model for Subjective Experience;” ICNISC 2018; ISBN-13: 978-1-5386-6956-3

Malone, T; “Superminds – The Surprising Power of People and Computers Thinking Together”; Little, Brown and Company; 2018; ISBN-13: 9780316349130

Porter, H.; “A Methodology for the Assessment of AI Consciousness;” AGI 2016; 2016; Portland State University

Serebriakoff, V; “Self-Scoring IQ Tests;” Sterling/London; 1968, 1988, 1996; ISBN 978-0-7607-0164-5

Trochim, W.; “Threats to Conclusion Validity;” OCT 2018; http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/concthre.php

Wikipedia Foundation (WF); “Raven’s Progressive Matrices;” Oct 2018; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices

Wikipedia Foundation (WF); “Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale;” Oct 2018; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale

Wikipedia Foundation (WF); “Intelligence Quotient”; Oct 2018; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

Woolly, A.; “Collective Intelligence In Scientific Teams;” May 2018

Yampolskiy, R.; “Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security;” CRC Press, London/New York; 2019; ISBN: 978-0-8153-6982-0

Yampolskiy, R.; “Detecting Qualia in Natural and Artificial Agents;” University of Louisville, 2018

  Help Develop Artificial General Intelligence was originally published on transhumanity.net