<p>Check out <a href="http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~biglou/" rel="nofollow">Luis Von Ahn</a> at CMU. He is the original Captcha guy. You will find enough videos like this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtFroEJN1nI" rel="nofollow"> google techtalk</a> on the subject of Human Computation.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-19T22:52:28.537Z
Technically that doesn't count as supra-computational.  The effectiveness of his methodology can be explained by a semantic environment that computers don't have easy access to (e.g. upbringing, culture, social interaction, etc.)
yters
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-19T06:02:07.163Z
2010-11-19T06:02:07.163Z
V Vinay
<blockquote>
  <p>has anyone developed a technical method to take advantage of any unique, supra-computational properties of human intelligence?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A prerequisite for that would be that human intelligence actually has some supra-computational properties, no?  Frankly, the more I view human behavior, the more we appear to me to be automatons.  But perhaps the recent political climate has left me overly cynical. :)</p>

<p>Of course, human intelligence is better than the <em>current</em> algorithmic state of the art for many tasks.  For a practical application of that, you could look at, say, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Mechanical_Turk" rel="nofollow">Mechanical Turk</a>.</p>

<p>On the theoretical side, there are people (including some who happen to be computer scientists) who have advanced philosophical arguments for human supra-computational abilities.  You could look at, for example, the work of <a href="http://www.rpi.edu/~brings/" rel="nofollow">Selmer Bringsjord</a>.  You could also do a search on the term <em>hypercomputation</em>, but I suspect you will find that the parts which fall under the domain of TCS have nothing to do with people, and the parts that attempt to deal with human intelligence have little to do with TCS (or science in general).</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-19T22:53:53.483Z
But are there empirical experiments to detect supra-computational abilities, in principle (i.e. universally better than anything algorithms can do in theory)?
yters
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-20T01:20:57.927Z
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if there were such a thing we'd all have heard about it, seeing as how that would be a paradigm-shifting, Nobel-prize-winning type of discovery. :)
Kurt
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-21T23:09:13.093Z
Sweet, I've run experiments showing at least I have a supra-computational mind.  I wouldn't mind winning the Nobel-prize:)
yters
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-19T17:03:11.763Z
2010-11-19T17:03:11.763Z
Kurt
<p>Reinforcement learning (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning use) was inspired from the idea of how a human individual interact with the environment and learns from it. </p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-19T15:19:28.997Z
...assuming humans actually learn that way, which we don't actually know.  (We've heard this line before, you know.)
Jeffε
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-19T22:58:09.500Z
You assume human intelligence is computational, which begs the question.
yters
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-20T06:11:27.677Z
Reiforcement learning was inspired from human learning process. I should not have used the word "same approach"
Prabu 
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-19T10:38:10.153Z
2010-11-20T06:08:41.453Z
2010-11-20T06:08:41.453Z
Prabu 
<p>You'll want to check out <a href="http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jps/" rel="noreferrer">The Journal of Problem Solving</a>. It's not so much trying to determine if humans can outperform algorithms in general but rather trying to understand the human problem solving process from a multidisciplinary perspective.</p>

<p>For example, the first issue was focused on human performance on TSP.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-19T22:54:40.643Z
Thanks, that is a good reference.  This is the best answer, so far.
yters
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-19T07:28:43.190Z
2010-11-19T07:28:43.190Z
Cong Han
<p>Have there been any studies to determine whether human intelligence can outperform algorithms (i.e. test whether the No Free Lunch Theorem applies to human intelligence)?</p>

<p>Along the same lines, has anyone developed a technical method to take advantage of any unique, supra-computational properties of human intelligence?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-17T10:12:46.677Z
a related question: http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/5379/1037
Artem Kaznatcheev
<ds.algorithms><big-picture><ai.artificial-intel>
Human intelligence and algorithms
yters
# Human intelligence and algorithms

(Asked by: username_0 on 2010-11-19)

Have there been any studies to determine whether human intelligence can outperform algorithms (i.e. test whether the No Free Lunch Theorem applies to human intelligence)?

Along the same lines, has anyone developed a technical method to take advantage of any unique, supra-computational properties of human intelligence?

**Tags:** ds.algorithms, big-picture, ai.artificial-intel
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: a related question: http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/5379/1037  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2010-11-19. Score: 8 | Accepted answer

You'll want to check out [The Journal of Problem Solving](http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jps/). It's not so much trying to determine if humans can outperform algorithms in general but rather trying to understand the human problem solving process from a multidisciplinary perspective.

For example, the first issue was focused on human performance on TSP.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks, that is a good reference.  This is the best answer, so far.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2010-11-19. Score: 7

Check out [Luis Von Ahn](http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~biglou/) at CMU. He is the original Captcha guy. You will find enough videos like this  [google techtalk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtFroEJN1nI) on the subject of Human Computation.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Technically that doesn't count as supra-computational.  The effectiveness of his methodology can be explained by a semantic environment that computers don't have easy access to (e.g. upbringing, culture, social interaction, etc.)  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2010-11-19. Score: 2

> has anyone developed a technical method to take advantage of any unique, supra-computational properties of human intelligence?

A prerequisite for that would be that human intelligence actually has some supra-computational properties, no? Frankly, the more I view human behavior, the more we appear to me to be automatons. But perhaps the recent political climate has left me overly cynical. :)

Of course, human intelligence is better than the *current* algorithmic state of the art for many tasks. For a practical application of that, you could look at, say, [Mechanical Turk](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Mechanical_Turk).

On the theoretical side, there are people (including some who happen to be computer scientists) who have advanced philosophical arguments for human supra-computational abilities. You could look at, for example, the work of [Selmer Bringsjord](http://www.rpi.edu/~brings/). You could also do a search on the term *hypercomputation*, but I suspect you will find that the parts which fall under the domain of TCS have nothing to do with people, and the parts that attempt to deal with human intelligence have little to do with TCS (or science in general).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: But are there empirical experiments to detect supra-computational abilities, in principle (i.e. universally better than anything algorithms can do in theory)?  
> **username_3**: I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if there were such a thing we'd all have heard about it, seeing as how that would be a paradigm-shifting, Nobel-prize-winning type of discovery. :)  
> **username_0**: Sweet, I've run experiments showing at least I have a supra-computational mind.  I wouldn't mind winning the Nobel-prize:)  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2010-11-19. Score: 1

Reinforcement learning (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement\_learning use) was inspired from the idea of how a human individual interact with the environment and learns from it.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: ...assuming humans actually learn that way, which we don't actually know.  (We've heard this line before, you know.)  
> **username_0**: You assume human intelligence is computational, which begs the question.  
> **username_4**: Reiforcement learning was inspired from human learning process. I should not have used the word "same approach"  

---

