3 ms·

My point is there are all sorts of hidden complexities and 2nd order interaction between things we don't yet understand. I'd argue that this goes beyond comput

My point is there are all sorts of hidden complexities and 2nd order interaction between things we don't yet understand. I'd argue that this goes beyond computational tractability and is still an issue of statistical power. There are millions of common variants in the human genome and we've only sequenced thousands of people so it's not exactly controversial to say genetics is poorly understood. Which as the AI-safety people say, isn't to say we should be researching it just that we should be devoting more energy to doing it safely as the potential consequences are so high even if the chances of things going wrong is low.

AbrahamParangi 10y ago
I think this is because while we've been messing around creating novel human genomes for at least two-hundred-thousand years, we've been creating non-human thought processes for only 40 years. And it's really only picked up in the last 10. Our butts are at least partly covered that we do anything particularly awful on the genetic engineering front because genomes have been scrambling around in all kinds of different configurations for billions of years now and nothing too awful has happened. Except, arguably, us. Although I like to think we're the best result so far rather than the worst.
- micro_cam 10y ago
  I don't buy the genetic engineering is natural argument for a couple of key reasons The first thing is that with natural selection of cross breeding new strains start small and ramp up providing a natural provisional test period. With genetic engineering the goal is often something like a blockbuster new type of corn which sees global adoption quickly. So if something unexpected happens there is a non zero risk of lots of people's food supplies not working out. Further if we're making analogies to nature, it's important to note that terrible things happen in nature. The key part of natural selection is that only some organisms get to reproduce and the rest often live miserable short lives. I mean, to be flippant, our butts are covered in the sense we probably won't see anything worse than zinka, sickle cell anemia or ebola?
  - AbrahamParangi 10y ago
    While it's not difficult to imagine scenarios where we create bioweapons of unprecedented ferocity, state actors have probably already done this to some degree. I argue that outside of engineered diseases it's difficult to imagine existential risks that could be posed by genetic engineering. Except, of course, making a better human which would almost certainly and immediately pose an existential risk to old Homo sapiens sapiens.
    - onestepatime 10y ago
      > While it's not difficult to imagine scenarios where we create bioweapons of unprecedented ferocity, state actors have probably already done this to some degree. There is still a difference between "created" and "deployed at large scale".
- 13years 10y ago
  >billions of years now and nothing too awful has happened Depends on perspective. Millions of species are extinct. Which is to say some mutation actually don't work out so well.
emmab 10y ago
> Which as the AI-safety people say, isn't to say we should be researching it just that we should be devoting more energy to doing it safely as the potential consequences are so high even if the chances of things going wrong is low. Are the potential consequences really so high? It's not like we're going to be genetically engineering all of humanity in the same way at once, whereas AI safety effects all of humanity at once.
- micro_cam 10y ago
  I'd argue that our food supply is most at risk as it becomes increasingly a GMO monoculture. (And maybe the solution is as simple as taking measures to encourage genetic diversity.) So i mean the consequences may be orders of magnitude smaller but I'd also argue the chance of something happening is orders of magnitude larger. (We're talking about small chances for either event, that's my point).
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    Monoculture is the risk. GMO is just a symptom. We've had genetic engineering as long as we've had farming. The difference is that we've applied industrial practice to everything. The result will be destructive in the long term, but profitable for now. It's profitable because everything is fungible. There is no incentive to maintain the land. Ancient Rome literally had the same problem.

AbrahamParangi 10y ago

I think this is because while we've been messing around creating novel human genomes for at least two-hundred-thousand years, we've been creating non-human thought processes for only 40 years. And it's really only picked up in the last 10. Our butts are at least partly covered that we do anything particularly awful on the genetic engineering front because genomes have been scrambling around in all kinds of different configurations for billions of years now and nothing too awful has happened. Except, arguably, us. Although I like to think we're the best result so far rather than the worst.

micro_cam 10y ago
I don't buy the genetic engineering is natural argument for a couple of key reasons The first thing is that with natural selection of cross breeding new strains start small and ramp up providing a natural provisional test period. With genetic engineering the goal is often something like a blockbuster new type of corn which sees global adoption quickly. So if something unexpected happens there is a non zero risk of lots of people's food supplies not working out. Further if we're making analogies to nature, it's important to note that terrible things happen in nature. The key part of natural selection is that only some organisms get to reproduce and the rest often live miserable short lives. I mean, to be flippant, our butts are covered in the sense we probably won't see anything worse than zinka, sickle cell anemia or ebola?
- AbrahamParangi 10y ago
  While it's not difficult to imagine scenarios where we create bioweapons of unprecedented ferocity, state actors have probably already done this to some degree. I argue that outside of engineered diseases it's difficult to imagine existential risks that could be posed by genetic engineering. Except, of course, making a better human which would almost certainly and immediately pose an existential risk to old Homo sapiens sapiens.
  - onestepatime 10y ago
    > While it's not difficult to imagine scenarios where we create bioweapons of unprecedented ferocity, state actors have probably already done this to some degree. There is still a difference between "created" and "deployed at large scale".
13years 10y ago
>billions of years now and nothing too awful has happened Depends on perspective. Millions of species are extinct. Which is to say some mutation actually don't work out so well.

emmab 10y ago

> Which as the AI-safety people say, isn't to say we should be researching it just that we should be devoting more energy to doing it safely as the potential consequences are so high even if the chances of things going wrong is low. Are the potential consequences really so high? It's not like we're going to be genetically engineering all of humanity in the same way at once, whereas AI safety effects all of humanity at once.

micro_cam 10y ago
I'd argue that our food supply is most at risk as it becomes increasingly a GMO monoculture. (And maybe the solution is as simple as taking measures to encourage genetic diversity.) So i mean the consequences may be orders of magnitude smaller but I'd also argue the chance of something happening is orders of magnitude larger. (We're talking about small chances for either event, that's my point).
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Monoculture is the risk. GMO is just a symptom. We've had genetic engineering as long as we've had farming. The difference is that we've applied industrial practice to everything. The result will be destructive in the long term, but profitable for now. It's profitable because everything is fungible. There is no incentive to maintain the land. Ancient Rome literally had the same problem.