I think this is a valuable post. I say that less engaging with the specific ideas (they all seem like plausibly correct analyses to me), but for exploring the problem at all.
1. There’s a societal taboo against discussions of intelligence and IQ that although it is much weaker on LessWrong, I wonder if it is not completely absent, and therefore we don’t get that many posts like this one.
2. I often feel annoyed and judgmental that broader society doesn’t clamor for longevity increases – it’s seems so correct to think these are possible and important. Reading this post, I wonder if I commit the same mistake regarding intelligence enhancement. It clearly should be doable.
The argument against thinking about this stuff is that we have more dire urgent problems (AI) and in contrast there isn’t that much tractability here. But was I justified in believing that before this post? Am I still justified in believing it?
In reality, I (and others?) feel stuck regarding AI, if so, isn’t intelligence stuff worth more attention? This actually does that. I’m caught between giving it a 4 and a 9.
Regarding tractability, I think there’s probably considerably more tractability in the reprogenetics area than you’re aware of. (Though of course, IDK how much tractability you think there is, and I have a lot of uncertainty about the area.) I think there’s substantial gridlock about the area, which implies that progress is locally significantly more difficult than it may appear at first, but also that progress is globally significantly easier than it may appear at second. On a more technical level, we’re actually pretty close to parents being able to give their future children very high intelligence in expectation, like measured in several years rather than several decades conditional on “a lot” of resources going into the field (think order of a billion dollars and substantial bio research talent). Some information on that is here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2w6hjptanQ3cDyDw7/methods-for-strong-human-germline-engineering and I’m usually available for calls to talk through some of this (though I’m only informed about some parts of the problem).
(I have some substantial upside uncertainty about other methods that could be developed faster, though I’m skeptical of them getting large gains.)
I think this is a valuable post. I say that less engaging with the specific ideas (they all seem like plausibly correct analyses to me), but for exploring the problem at all.
1. There’s a societal taboo against discussions of intelligence and IQ that although it is much weaker on LessWrong, I wonder if it is not completely absent, and therefore we don’t get that many posts like this one.
2. I often feel annoyed and judgmental that broader society doesn’t clamor for longevity increases – it’s seems so correct to think these are possible and important. Reading this post, I wonder if I commit the same mistake regarding intelligence enhancement. It clearly should be doable.
The argument against thinking about this stuff is that we have more dire urgent problems (AI) and in contrast there isn’t that much tractability here. But was I justified in believing that before this post? Am I still justified in believing it?
In reality, I (and others?) feel stuck regarding AI, if so, isn’t intelligence stuff worth more attention? This actually does that. I’m caught between giving it a 4 and a 9.
Thanks!
Regarding tractability, I think there’s probably considerably more tractability in the reprogenetics area than you’re aware of. (Though of course, IDK how much tractability you think there is, and I have a lot of uncertainty about the area.) I think there’s substantial gridlock about the area, which implies that progress is locally significantly more difficult than it may appear at first, but also that progress is globally significantly easier than it may appear at second. On a more technical level, we’re actually pretty close to parents being able to give their future children very high intelligence in expectation, like measured in several years rather than several decades conditional on “a lot” of resources going into the field (think order of a billion dollars and substantial bio research talent). Some information on that is here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2w6hjptanQ3cDyDw7/methods-for-strong-human-germline-engineering and I’m usually available for calls to talk through some of this (though I’m only informed about some parts of the problem).
(I have some substantial upside uncertainty about other methods that could be developed faster, though I’m skeptical of them getting large gains.)