4 ms·

I guess you didn't look hard enough. Because the top comment is a lie: If you outlaw this, people like me (who think inflicting stupidly and ill-health on thei

I guess you didn't look hard enough. Because the top comment is a lie: If you outlaw this, people like me (who think inflicting stupidly and ill-health on their children by withholding these technologies is morally wrong) will just fly to Singapore. Even if you could enforce this, not every country will. 5+ standard deviation increases in many traits is on the table Nope, 5+ std deviations is not on the table.

tlb 7y ago
You might disapprove of the sentiment, but that does not appear to be a lie. A lie has to be factually incorrect. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie
- codesushi42 7y ago
  Claiming 5+ std deviations is a statement, not a sentiment. The author cites a paper that makes no such claim. That counts as a lie.
  - tlb 7y ago
    The citation by Gwern mentions a number of traits which could plausibly be improved 5 SD, like height (which would be +20 inches -- ie, a 7'5" man).
    - codesushi42 7y ago
      Height has nothing to do with intelligence, which is what the discussion thread is about.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - tlb 7y ago
        I think pointing to evidence that many traits are susceptible to +5 SD increases by genetic screening is reasonable in the context a discussion about intelligence, even though +5 SD change in intelligence hasn't been demonstrated. +5 SD change in intelligence (ie, average IQ of 175) would be amazing, but it's not obviously impossible. So it's "on the table" in the sense that cities on Mars are "on the table". It's not prohibited by any known laws of nature, and some experts are working on it. There are lots of actual lies in circulation, so I encourage you to reserve the use of the word for things that are demonstrably false, not just ambitious claims that one might be skeptical of.
        codesushi42 7y ago
        That was never shown, it is you who are stretching what can reasonably be claimed with basically no evidence supporting such nonsense. None of what you said was in the original source. Stretching the truth like this is lying, whether you like it or not.

tlb 7y ago

You might disapprove of the sentiment, but that does not appear to be a lie. A lie has to be factually incorrect. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

codesushi42 7y ago
Claiming 5+ std deviations is a statement, not a sentiment. The author cites a paper that makes no such claim. That counts as a lie.
- tlb 7y ago
  The citation by Gwern mentions a number of traits which could plausibly be improved 5 SD, like height (which would be +20 inches -- ie, a 7'5" man).
  - codesushi42 7y ago
    Height has nothing to do with intelligence, which is what the discussion thread is about.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - tlb 7y ago
      I think pointing to evidence that many traits are susceptible to +5 SD increases by genetic screening is reasonable in the context a discussion about intelligence, even though +5 SD change in intelligence hasn't been demonstrated. +5 SD change in intelligence (ie, average IQ of 175) would be amazing, but it's not obviously impossible. So it's "on the table" in the sense that cities on Mars are "on the table". It's not prohibited by any known laws of nature, and some experts are working on it. There are lots of actual lies in circulation, so I encourage you to reserve the use of the word for things that are demonstrably false, not just ambitious claims that one might be skeptical of.
      - codesushi42 7y ago
        That was never shown, it is you who are stretching what can reasonably be claimed with basically no evidence supporting such nonsense. None of what you said was in the original source. Stretching the truth like this is lying, whether you like it or not.