Here’s a second-order effect worth considering: Germline modification for intelligence is statutorily prohibited in most countries, the relevant professional societies are currentlycalling for a 10 year moratorium on the topic, and the public polling is uniformly and staunchly opposed. What if all that is for a good reason? Might some bright young person wanting to work on AI Safety end up having a counterfactually reduced impact if they choose to pursue such a devastatingly disfavored research path?
What if all that is for a good reason? Might some bright young person wanting to work on AI Safety end up having a counterfactually reduced impact if they choose to pursue such a devastatingly disfavored research path?
Just to check, these are two separate points, right? I.e. you’re suggesting:
There are good reasons that the public is largely against reprogenetics for intelligence.
Talent would be wasted on reprogenetics because it’s disfavored by the public, and therefore won’t have much impact.
There are definitely good reasons that the public answers the way they do on surveys. However, I also think that reprogenetics can be done in a way that people would like. I think the disconnect comes from society not having processed this yet. That’s part of why there’s so much altruistic alpha here—reprogenetics is good and there’s very little organized advocacy for it!
If you think reprogenetics isn’t feasible to do in a way that is legibly beneficial to approximately everyone and to humanity and society, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts about that, e.g. what’s most bad about it / what are the consequences that make you suspect it would turn out bad.
Regarding your first sentence: I have to say, I suspect you did not read these things you’re citing. Maybe you found these with an AI search? Do not comment on my posts with citations that you did not actually read to at least verify that the claims you’re citing are even stated there.
Germline modification for intelligence is statutorily prohibited in most countries
The survey you linked seems to discuss laws mainly about gene editing specifically. Reprogenetics includes other genomic vectoring methods—and in fact the ones I’m most interested in are not editing (rather, iterated meiotic selection and chromosome selection). It’s plausible that the bans would be extended or would be interpreted to apply to such technologies, but I don’t know. One of the main justifications for banning heritable reproductive gene editing specifically is that gene editors are in fact unsafe currently. This would apply less, or at least differently, to selection methods.
It also doesn’t seem to mention intelligence or cognitive traits.
I believe that PGT-P, i.e. polygenic screening, is banned in many countries; but this is again also a ban regarding reducing disease risks. And again, there’s been no substantive organized effort to change this, and therefore there could very well be high altruistic alpha here.
Germline modification for intelligence [....] the public polling is uniformly and staunchly opposed.
The study that you cited is
a sample of only Australians
shows fairly strong support (3.15 on a scale of 1-4) for germline editing to improve health
Which indeed shows that overall people answer that it’s “misusing technology”. (Note the strange wording; one wouldn’t really “change a baby’s genetic characteristics”.) Note the significant variation by country. Note also the high support for using reprogenetics “to REDUCE THE RISK of a serious disease or condition that could occur over the course of the baby’s lifetime”.
Here’s a second-order effect worth considering: Germline modification for intelligence is statutorily prohibited in most countries, the relevant professional societies are currently calling for a 10 year moratorium on the topic, and the public polling is uniformly and staunchly opposed. What if all that is for a good reason? Might some bright young person wanting to work on AI Safety end up having a counterfactually reduced impact if they choose to pursue such a devastatingly disfavored research path?
Just to check, these are two separate points, right? I.e. you’re suggesting:
There are good reasons that the public is largely against reprogenetics for intelligence.
Talent would be wasted on reprogenetics because it’s disfavored by the public, and therefore won’t have much impact.
There are definitely good reasons that the public answers the way they do on surveys. However, I also think that reprogenetics can be done in a way that people would like. I think the disconnect comes from society not having processed this yet. That’s part of why there’s so much altruistic alpha here—reprogenetics is good and there’s very little organized advocacy for it!
If you think reprogenetics isn’t feasible to do in a way that is legibly beneficial to approximately everyone and to humanity and society, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts about that, e.g. what’s most bad about it / what are the consequences that make you suspect it would turn out bad.
Regarding your first sentence: I have to say, I suspect you did not read these things you’re citing. Maybe you found these with an AI search? Do not comment on my posts with citations that you did not actually read to at least verify that the claims you’re citing are even stated there.
The survey you linked seems to discuss laws mainly about gene editing specifically. Reprogenetics includes other genomic vectoring methods—and in fact the ones I’m most interested in are not editing (rather, iterated meiotic selection and chromosome selection). It’s plausible that the bans would be extended or would be interpreted to apply to such technologies, but I don’t know. One of the main justifications for banning heritable reproductive gene editing specifically is that gene editors are in fact unsafe currently. This would apply less, or at least differently, to selection methods.
It also doesn’t seem to mention intelligence or cognitive traits.
I believe that PGT-P, i.e. polygenic screening, is banned in many countries; but this is again also a ban regarding reducing disease risks. And again, there’s been no substantive organized effort to change this, and therefore there could very well be high altruistic alpha here.
The study that you cited is
a sample of only Australians
shows fairly strong support (3.15 on a scale of 1-4) for germline editing to improve health
DOES NOT ASK ABOUT INTELLIGENCE
Here is a better poll: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/12/10/biotechnology-research-viewed-with-caution-globally-but-most-support-gene-editing-for-babies-to-treat-disease/
It includes this:
That comes from here:
Which indeed shows that overall people answer that it’s “misusing technology”. (Note the strange wording; one wouldn’t really “change a baby’s genetic characteristics”.) Note the significant variation by country. Note also the high support for using reprogenetics “to REDUCE THE RISK of a serious disease or condition that could occur over the course of the baby’s lifetime”.