Ya Polkovnik

Karma: −31

Ya Polkovnik 22 Sep 2025 4:58 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: GeneSmith’s comment on: How to Make Superbabies
Thanks for replying!
The link is: https://habr.com/ru/articles/933324/

Ya Polkovnik 12 Sep 2025 8:34 UTC
5 points
0
on: How to Make Superbabies
I’m preemptively sorry if this question have already been raised, I don’t feel like reading all the comments.

What am I doing now is reciting the points from Habr (a mostly-coding-oriented site where this article have been translated in Russian and criticized in comments)
The main criticism is against the key point of the article, the graphs of “edit N genes, get M bonus to IQ”.

The arguments are:
1. There are only a few hundred IQ-related genes, and they’re found through a correlation in over 240k people, so it’s not necessary that you can just edit all these genes to set them on a “more IQ” version in a specific genome, and get maximum IQ.
  www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2018/03/genes-intelligence.page
2. By editing more nucleotide sequences, you will only increase the risks of breaking the genome’s reading, replication, expression and other mechanisms, killing the cell. DNA isn’t merely a line of text that encodes proteins, it’s full of commands for enzymes to work with it. As a tip of the iceberg: there are 20k genes that encode 100-1000k proteins in human body, because 1 gene contains several exons (and introns), which, during transcription, are combined in different ways to encode several proteins.
Yeah, a strange hobby I have found for myself: connecting two sides in an internet argument, like a novice chess player copying moves from two grossmeisters to not lose against at least one…

Ya Polkovnik 25 Nov 2024 9:56 UTC
−8 points
0
on: Helpful examples to get a sense of modern automated manipulation
I remember how anti-war was a pro-Ukrainian position. Now, to be that kind of “antiwar”, you must be for military escalation to destroy Russia, call up “kill the orcs”, and Russia is trying to start the negotiations.

Well, to be fair, it was like that since the beginning, and pacifism was just a shiny cover.

By the way, I’m not pro-Russian. Srsly. They don’t genuinely seek, and wouldn’t ever achieve denazification, even though it’s very important to do.

Ya Polkovnik 14 Oct 2024 7:58 UTC
0 points
0
on: Universal Basic Income and Poverty
Yes. Trying to make up a new way to redistribute the products among the whole society is pointless, if the means of production are still owned privately.

Ya Polkovnik 30 Sep 2024 11:25 UTC
−7 points
0
on: Should Effective Altruism be at war with North Korea?
What’s so bad about DPRK tho?

Ya Polkovnik 24 Sep 2024 12:11 UTC
−11 points
−6
on: Agreeing With Stalin in Ways That Exhibit Generally Rationalist Principles
As someone who agrees with Stalin in, well, most of the questions (with a few exceptions, some of them are quite important, but it’s not that important to explain there), what could I say?
1. There are newer papers on IQ and race, and a lot of critique of that one.
2. Ability to solve IQ tests can differ in a single person, for like 10+ points. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/study-finds-poverty-reduces-brain-power-idUSL6N0GU1PO/
3. My dad have scored around 170, and considers IQ tests pointless.
4. I agree with your point about the male-looking face.
5. It’s pointless to pretend that LGBT+ is not an organisation with ideology. By the way, their ideology is too backwards and reactionary in relation to what do WE plan, regarding the sex and family.
6. Yes, setting a question of racial IQ dependency is bad. Human intelligence is dependent on its development around their whole life and usage. Making such questions, you begin to act to create proofs for them (self-fulfilling prediction, aha), and thus go against the basic principles of democracy.
7. Yes, “high IQ jews” goes into the same dumpster.

Ya Polkovnik 17 Sep 2024 19:23 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Seth Herd’s comment on: I just can’t agree with AI safety. Why am I wrong?
Thanks.

Ya Polkovnik 14 Sep 2024 13:23 UTC
1 point
−2
in reply to: faul_sname’s comment on: I just can’t agree with AI safety. Why am I wrong?
1. You seem to miss the point. It’s not about concepts. The GPT-4 is advertised as a system that can work with both text and images. It doesn’t. And isn’t being developed any further, beyond increasing the amount of symbols and other quantitative stuff.
No matter the amount of gigabytes it writes per second, I’m not afraid of something that sees the world as text. +1 point to capitalism for not making something that is overly expensive to develop and may doom the world.
1. Thanks, I’ll read.

I just can’t agree with AI safety. Why am I wrong?

Ya Polkovnik13 Sep 2024 17:48 UTC

0 points

5 comments2 min readLW link