4 ms·

It's a major can of worms. If any of these classifiers work well on intelligence, orientation, character, capabilities, it might give scientific backing to some

by bitL 9y ago

It's a major can of worms. If any of these classifiers work well on intelligence, orientation, character, capabilities, it might give scientific backing to some horrible practices like eugenics, abortions/extermination of undesirables etc. This is a truly horrifying scenario, an ultimate black pill and humanity will need to confront it soon it seems.

adventured 9y ago
Apparently we can accurately determine a child is a psychopath from an extremely young age now: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-year-old-a-psychopath.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-... There's no question that the next 20-30 years will be overflowing with cans of worms. The next step after early (fetus or embryo stage) diagnosing of X thing, is that we're going to soon have the genetic alteration power to do something about it courtesy of CRISPR. It seems practically guaranteed that authoritarian societies will begin forcing parents to alter their unborn children to eliminate all sorts of attributes that are considered undesirable by whatever regime is in power.
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  Would you believe 20 months old? It seems preposterous but this one girl was pretty antisocial as a toddler. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-yo...
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  It won't take an authoritarian regime to force people to alter their embryonic children. I'm certain people will be willingly lining up at the clinics.
  - pizza 9y ago
    Heh, I'm.. wary of that, I guess? The people who alter their embryonic children during the first 100 years of that technology's existence - I assume - will mostly get a raw deal until embryonic alteration as a field goes through a billion 'Anna Karenina principle' failures. We have the ability to adapt by simulating nature in our minds, and science too comes from this - but we are the result of so much time and such harsh filtering. In other words, I don't think we will see as much interest ten years into it after as we would during the first year.. we would only, in such little time, pick the low-hanging fruit changes. But these are also the ones nature has not propagated - which would be odd if they are both simplest to achieve (including my accidental mutation) and also known to be beneficial on average. I'd imagine hypothetically that the first wave of children would start exhibiting genetic illnesses will drive down the willingness to sign children up, out of simple precaution that parents are unlikely to have ever seen evidence that the procedure does not have a risk of ruining the child's life.
cool_shit 9y ago
It was a major can of worms when we started image recognition years ago. I think privacy will naturally continue to decrease if there's no regulation. More information is ammo for both good and bad applications. At first something like this could be used for affirmative action: airport security, seeking potential employees; anything where your appearance might be important. I think The West has more or less learned to ridicule the idea that "some people that naturally look a certain way should be treated a certain way". But yeah, if you're sweaty and shady at a presidential convention, it would be nice to have this kind of technology in place.
throwaway3636 9y ago
> If any of these classifiers work well on intelligence, orientation, character, capabilities, it might give scientific backing to some horrible practices like eugenics, abortions/extermination of undesirables etc. I completely disagree -- I think the consequences of this technology could potentially alleviate much suffering, but it's important that we get ahead of it in terms of policy, so that the eugenicists can't capitalize on it. As taboo as it is to say, I believe there are statistically significant differences in capacity and motivation between people. If we continue to deny this (the current politically correct response), our wider social policy will assume an equality of capability that's just not true. This leads to policy solutions like re-education as a solution to homelessness or jobs lost to technological improvements, rather than accepting that some people can't hold down jobs that are valued in the 21st century and just giving them some damn housing and money to feed themselves. Income inequality is a gigantic issue facing us in the next 20-50 years, and a sober understanding of the population distribution of talent is important as we face that. Most taxi and uber drivers displaced by self driving cars are not going be smart enough to take dev bootcamps and become software developers. It's critical that we accept this as a society so that we can get safety nets like universal income or government make-work programs in place, so that these folks can live decent lives. > This is a truly horrifying scenario, an ultimate black pill and humanity will need to confront it soon it seems. This was the most frustrating thing about James Damore's firing from Google, is that rather than debating the accuracy and policy consequences of Damore's point (equal intellectual capacity but differing levels of motivation for software engineering work between men and women) they stuck their head, called him a bigot, and fired him. Technologies like this could be amazing for progressive politics, but these cherished notions of equality of capability need to die. I don't think the current zeitgeist of the left will let that happen.

by bitL 9y ago

adventured 9y ago

Apparently we can accurately determine a child is a psychopath from an extremely young age now: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-year-old-a-psychopath.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-... There's no question that the next 20-30 years will be overflowing with cans of worms. The next step after early (fetus or embryo stage) diagnosing of X thing, is that we're going to soon have the genetic alteration power to do something about it courtesy of CRISPR. It seems practically guaranteed that authoritarian societies will begin forcing parents to alter their unborn children to eliminate all sorts of attributes that are considered undesirable by whatever regime is in power.

stevenwoo 9y ago
Would you believe 20 months old? It seems preposterous but this one girl was pretty antisocial as a toddler. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-yo...
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
It won't take an authoritarian regime to force people to alter their embryonic children. I'm certain people will be willingly lining up at the clinics.
- pizza 9y ago
  Heh, I'm.. wary of that, I guess? The people who alter their embryonic children during the first 100 years of that technology's existence - I assume - will mostly get a raw deal until embryonic alteration as a field goes through a billion 'Anna Karenina principle' failures. We have the ability to adapt by simulating nature in our minds, and science too comes from this - but we are the result of so much time and such harsh filtering. In other words, I don't think we will see as much interest ten years into it after as we would during the first year.. we would only, in such little time, pick the low-hanging fruit changes. But these are also the ones nature has not propagated - which would be odd if they are both simplest to achieve (including my accidental mutation) and also known to be beneficial on average. I'd imagine hypothetically that the first wave of children would start exhibiting genetic illnesses will drive down the willingness to sign children up, out of simple precaution that parents are unlikely to have ever seen evidence that the procedure does not have a risk of ruining the child's life.

cool_shit 9y ago

It was a major can of worms when we started image recognition years ago. I think privacy will naturally continue to decrease if there's no regulation. More information is ammo for both good and bad applications. At first something like this could be used for affirmative action: airport security, seeking potential employees; anything where your appearance might be important. I think The West has more or less learned to ridicule the idea that "some people that naturally look a certain way should be treated a certain way". But yeah, if you're sweaty and shady at a presidential convention, it would be nice to have this kind of technology in place.

throwaway3636 9y ago

> If any of these classifiers work well on intelligence, orientation, character, capabilities, it might give scientific backing to some horrible practices like eugenics, abortions/extermination of undesirables etc. I completely disagree -- I think the consequences of this technology could potentially alleviate much suffering, but it's important that we get ahead of it in terms of policy, so that the eugenicists can't capitalize on it. As taboo as it is to say, I believe there are statistically significant differences in capacity and motivation between people. If we continue to deny this (the current politically correct response), our wider social policy will assume an equality of capability that's just not true. This leads to policy solutions like re-education as a solution to homelessness or jobs lost to technological improvements, rather than accepting that some people can't hold down jobs that are valued in the 21st century and just giving them some damn housing and money to feed themselves. Income inequality is a gigantic issue facing us in the next 20-50 years, and a sober understanding of the population distribution of talent is important as we face that. Most taxi and uber drivers displaced by self driving cars are not going be smart enough to take dev bootcamps and become software developers. It's critical that we accept this as a society so that we can get safety nets like universal income or government make-work programs in place, so that these folks can live decent lives. > This is a truly horrifying scenario, an ultimate black pill and humanity will need to confront it soon it seems. This was the most frustrating thing about James Damore's firing from Google, is that rather than debating the accuracy and policy consequences of Damore's point (equal intellectual capacity but differing levels of motivation for software engineering work between men and women) they stuck their head, called him a bigot, and fired him. Technologies like this could be amazing for progressive politics, but these cherished notions of equality of capability need to die. I don't think the current zeitgeist of the left will let that happen.