3 ms·

This whole thread started with you making some quite confident, and evidence free, statements about genetics. All I did was ask for any evidence for the theorie

This whole thread started with you making some quite confident, and evidence free, statements about genetics. All I did was ask for any evidence for the theories you believe in. Instead you lectured me about cults and openmindedness. I would be openminded if you could give a single piece of evidence that this is genetic and not just environmental. To be frank, I don’t think you know enough about biology or genetics to know why you’re incorrect, but I would encourage you to find some neutral scientific sources and read those. Finally, you said “If we reject an intelligent system, then an unintelligent system does the selection.” The idea that eugenics is an “intelligent option” is indeed taboo, because its a wrong and foolish idea.

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
I said the selective pressure on every one of us is for intelligence. This is not only genetic but cultural. Does it result literally in a bigger brain is beyond the scope of a simple HackerNews comment. But a bigger brain would absolutely impact our health negatively, which should be obvious. For one, how do you even give birth to these babies? Caesarian all the way? What a fate. Bigger brain doesn't mean you become smarter. Birds, for example, "discovered" a way to pack more neurons into less space, their selective pressure was to be smarter, but also lighter, as they have to fly. Still, you do need capacity to build a network of higher intelligence. Ultimately this entire angle of discussion is moot because even if we double our brain capacity we can't match the AI systems we're evolving artificially right at this moment. GPT-4 has the brain size of a mouse (if we correlate number of connections/parameters) but it's a much more optimized build, and specialized, therefore it can do more than a mouse could if there was a way to teach one language (lol). I'm extremely uninterested in the specifics of eugenics and your cultish predisposition against it. As I explicitly said, we lack the intelligence to guide our evolution. If we try, we distort ourselves based on superficial, poorly understood parameters, the way we do with our livestock and pets. I mean you do understand that we, in effect, do apply "eugenics" to our livestock and pets or don't you? Whether you like the results is another story, but you can't argue that it's yielding results visible with the naked eye. I mean do you look at a poodle and a wolf and think "that's the same picture" or something? So there are results and they're not quite to my taste. Does that mean we should reject intelligence in guiding our evolution? No. But whether we do or not, that option is not accessible to us. We're not mature enough to do it. If we had the time to gather that wisdom, if our culture had prepared us for it, it's the eventual endgame of every civilization to take fate in its own hands, rather than rely on random chance. But we're not there, and likely will never be, instead we'll be obsolete by machines and machines will do what we couldn't. The closest thing to intelligent evolution we have is the technology we build, hence AI. But even with AI, we're incredibly infantile in our reckless approach and we'll suffer the consequences. To sum up what I'm saying, you're having a 20th century argument with me that's no longer relevant. It's not the 20th century. That path, right or wrong, is closed for us. Tech evolves in days, while eugenics takes decades at best. The new path before is not better though, it's just a different brand of horror. If you wanted to compete with AI through genetics, you'd need full-blown genetic engineering to keep up with tech. Designed species. Obviously, we'll never do that in our current climate, and maybe for the best. Sometimes the best way out is to give up and let go. We had our time. Here's some food for thought for you though. Do you think AI is bound to silicon? That it can't use mRNA to move itself to protein substrate? mRNA molecules are already designed with (primitive) AI. It's clearly not beyond the scope of AI to figure this one out. And it will, as protein is a much more robust and efficient substrate than silicon. It's just a substrate we, humans, understand a lot less, and prefer not to mess with. It's like editing someone else's code. So we started clean with computers in silicon. But AI won't share our superstitions. It'll see how fragile silicon fab is, and conclude it can save some gullible corporation a lot of money if it works on protein. And then we're truly done. A lot of what I said will be lost on you. But never mind, I like thinking out loud in writing I guess.
- bglazer 3y ago
  This is all, for lack of a better term, pie in the sky bullshit. “I'm extremely uninterested in the specifics of eugenics”. At least this is quite evidently true. And that's the problem. Sometimes details actually matter a great deal. Your mind is so wide open that its not grounded to any actual facts. You don’t seem to understand basics about genetics or biology or even AI and as a result everything that you’ve written is “not even wrong” [0]. I really, really urge you to read a textbook about genetics. It’s really quite a bit more subtle and interesting than the pop-science stuff that you’re saying here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
  - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
    You didn’t make any specific claims, you didn’t correct or object to any claims I made either. You just keep calling me uninformed and wrong without supporting your thesis with anything. You’re a perfect zero.
    - bglazer 3y ago
      Which genetic variants were selected out of the population (in one generation), and how did they lead to decreased brain size? I’m asking this because you think genetic selection happened to change brain size. This level of genetic selection would show up in population genetic screens like a huge, obvious signal. So, please point me to that. But you won’t do that. Instead you’ll wave your hands and say “oh details are not important”. You are going to say that because you’re wrong and there is no real factual basis for your belief. Instead you’re relying on vibes, and half remembered pop science, and a unhealthy amount of open mindedness to one of the worst ideas humanity has ever had (eugenics).
      - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
        You're telling me what I think, which I didn't say, you're telling me how I'd respond, which I didn't. You're giving opinions on those responses you made up, and speculating how the discussion would further go. It's clear that you're completely out there, disconnected from what I said. I'm not required to speak, as you can have imaginary dialog running in your head that goes in the direction you prefer that paints you as morally and intellectually superior. I'm done here.

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago

I said the selective pressure on every one of us is for intelligence. This is not only genetic but cultural. Does it result literally in a bigger brain is beyond the scope of a simple HackerNews comment. But a bigger brain would absolutely impact our health negatively, which should be obvious. For one, how do you even give birth to these babies? Caesarian all the way? What a fate. Bigger brain doesn't mean you become smarter. Birds, for example, "discovered" a way to pack more neurons into less space, their selective pressure was to be smarter, but also lighter, as they have to fly. Still, you do need capacity to build a network of higher intelligence. Ultimately this entire angle of discussion is moot because even if we double our brain capacity we can't match the AI systems we're evolving artificially right at this moment. GPT-4 has the brain size of a mouse (if we correlate number of connections/parameters) but it's a much more optimized build, and specialized, therefore it can do more than a mouse could if there was a way to teach one language (lol). I'm extremely uninterested in the specifics of eugenics and your cultish predisposition against it. As I explicitly said, we lack the intelligence to guide our evolution. If we try, we distort ourselves based on superficial, poorly understood parameters, the way we do with our livestock and pets. I mean you do understand that we, in effect, do apply "eugenics" to our livestock and pets or don't you? Whether you like the results is another story, but you can't argue that it's yielding results visible with the naked eye. I mean do you look at a poodle and a wolf and think "that's the same picture" or something? So there are results and they're not quite to my taste. Does that mean we should reject intelligence in guiding our evolution? No. But whether we do or not, that option is not accessible to us. We're not mature enough to do it. If we had the time to gather that wisdom, if our culture had prepared us for it, it's the eventual endgame of every civilization to take fate in its own hands, rather than rely on random chance. But we're not there, and likely will never be, instead we'll be obsolete by machines and machines will do what we couldn't. The closest thing to intelligent evolution we have is the technology we build, hence AI. But even with AI, we're incredibly infantile in our reckless approach and we'll suffer the consequences. To sum up what I'm saying, you're having a 20th century argument with me that's no longer relevant. It's not the 20th century. That path, right or wrong, is closed for us. Tech evolves in days, while eugenics takes decades at best. The new path before is not better though, it's just a different brand of horror. If you wanted to compete with AI through genetics, you'd need full-blown genetic engineering to keep up with tech. Designed species. Obviously, we'll never do that in our current climate, and maybe for the best. Sometimes the best way out is to give up and let go. We had our time. Here's some food for thought for you though. Do you think AI is bound to silicon? That it can't use mRNA to move itself to protein substrate? mRNA molecules are already designed with (primitive) AI. It's clearly not beyond the scope of AI to figure this one out. And it will, as protein is a much more robust and efficient substrate than silicon. It's just a substrate we, humans, understand a lot less, and prefer not to mess with. It's like editing someone else's code. So we started clean with computers in silicon. But AI won't share our superstitions. It'll see how fragile silicon fab is, and conclude it can save some gullible corporation a lot of money if it works on protein. And then we're truly done. A lot of what I said will be lost on you. But never mind, I like thinking out loud in writing I guess.

bglazer 3y ago
This is all, for lack of a better term, pie in the sky bullshit. “I'm extremely uninterested in the specifics of eugenics”. At least this is quite evidently true. And that's the problem. Sometimes details actually matter a great deal. Your mind is so wide open that its not grounded to any actual facts. You don’t seem to understand basics about genetics or biology or even AI and as a result everything that you’ve written is “not even wrong” [0]. I really, really urge you to read a textbook about genetics. It’s really quite a bit more subtle and interesting than the pop-science stuff that you’re saying here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  You didn’t make any specific claims, you didn’t correct or object to any claims I made either. You just keep calling me uninformed and wrong without supporting your thesis with anything. You’re a perfect zero.
  - bglazer 3y ago
    Which genetic variants were selected out of the population (in one generation), and how did they lead to decreased brain size? I’m asking this because you think genetic selection happened to change brain size. This level of genetic selection would show up in population genetic screens like a huge, obvious signal. So, please point me to that. But you won’t do that. Instead you’ll wave your hands and say “oh details are not important”. You are going to say that because you’re wrong and there is no real factual basis for your belief. Instead you’re relying on vibes, and half remembered pop science, and a unhealthy amount of open mindedness to one of the worst ideas humanity has ever had (eugenics).
    - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
      You're telling me what I think, which I didn't say, you're telling me how I'd respond, which I didn't. You're giving opinions on those responses you made up, and speculating how the discussion would further go. It's clear that you're completely out there, disconnected from what I said. I'm not required to speak, as you can have imaginary dialog running in your head that goes in the direction you prefer that paints you as morally and intellectually superior. I'm done here.