wycs

10 ms·

31.
by wycs 8y ago
Vaporizing nicotine is unlikely to be as harmful as smoking long term. Nicotine itself is only moderately addictive without the concomitant administration of MAIO inhibitors. However, the incentive structure being what it is I somehow doubt
32.
by wycs 8y ago
Moral hazard. Their welfare system removes the incentive to have children. Could be fixed by giving parents a cut of the tax revenue of their future children.
33.
by wycs 8y ago
This will be my attitude until we are all replaced by pirated brain emulations of Linus Torvalds.
34.
by wycs 8y ago
If he wanted to prove his thesis, he should have adopted.
35.
by wycs 8y ago
>I wonder what are the implications for healthy brains. If humans are born with 80 billion neurons and you can increase that number Or do some somatic gene therapy before injection. Seems like about the only way to increase IQ after birt
36.
by wycs 8y ago
All these things get something in return. For all thats been spent on mining, we are getting 7 transactions per second in exchange. It is absurd.
37.
by wycs 8y ago
No. I think the claim "one can raise IQ several standard deviations by editing <200 alleles" is likely true: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.3421.pdf
38.
by wycs 8y ago
There is no human with all the positive variants; it is the the distribution of these variants that explains 5.2%. GM would allow you to create such a human. That paper does not imply what you think it implies: that editing all these varian
39.
by wycs 8y ago
I am aware of this. Genetic engineering implies far more power than Gwern mentions for one round of embryo selection. 5 standard deviations may sound a lot for you, but in animal breeding we have changed the distribution of various traits b
40.
Embryo Selection for Intelligence – Gwern(gwern.net)
3 points by wycs 8y ago|0 comments
41.
by wycs 8y ago
Most likely because it seems to be a phenotype that does not reproduce itself. None of Von Neumann’s children had kids if I recall correctly. This environment does not select for IQ past a certain point; this does not imply we cannot engine
42.
by wycs 8y ago
Though thousands of alleles contribute to intelligence, we would only need to edit a few hundred to get extremely large increases in IQ, especially if you perform a round of embryo selection (or even iterated embryo selection) before editin
43.
by wycs 8y ago
This is not true. Intelligence is polygenic. The average human is no Von Neumann. At the very least genetic engineering could raise average IQ to Von Neumann’s level. We know that phenotype is possible with no ill effects. It will likely ta
44.
by wycs 8y ago
In the short term I think the risks are overstated. Vastly increased health and intelligence looks like it will be possible to select and/or edit for, as well as the elimination of Mendelian disease. The scale of this good is so large
45.
by wycs 8y ago
Perhaps this is true. I do not know. But human enhancement through genetic engineering is coming. Changes in traits, such as IQ, by 5+ standard deviations looks possible. We would be fools to outlaw it here, for we would become as children
46.
by wycs 8y ago
Few people have not heard of crypto. If it is a ponzi there are no suckers left.
47.
by wycs 8y ago
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/5/E727.full.pdf
48.
by wycs 8y ago
China is full of extremely bright, hardworking people. It is not a nation of brain-washed automatons. I think AI alignment is some of the most important work in the world, and I think spreading and translating AI alignment research in China
49.
by wycs 8y ago
This is no longer the case; human computer hybrids are no longer competitive in chess. From Wikipedia: Computer chess engine Zor won the freestyle 2017 Ultimate Challenge tournament. The best human plus computer came in 3rd place. In 2017,
50.
by wycs 8y ago
Web development feels AI complete to me. In the sense that it would take human level AI to do. However, chess felt AI complete to Kasparov.
51.
by wycs 8y ago
You are right. I don't think I read his comment very carefully before replying.
52.
by wycs 8y ago
>He says general AI is on the same spectrum as the AI technologies we have now, but is qualitatively different. No it is not. The basic premise of fixed-winged aircraft was the same from Wright brothers to modern jets. Yet the wright bro
53.
by wycs 8y ago
I think the Chinese are harder working and seemingly smarter if your trust their PISA scores. I don't think there is any measurable trait of the quality of human capital in which Chinese workers do worse than Americans.
54.
by wycs 8y ago
Though I agree with the normative claim behind what you are saying, it is not descriptive. The economy should exist for the people; it does not now. And making it do so will be very difficult, short of the invention of Culture style Minds.
55.
by wycs 8y ago
>...Then he basically asserts that we can extrapolate the near-term availability of tons more compute power from Moore’s Law, which is where he lost me. That's not what he's asserting. Even with Moore's law dead, OpenAI cl
56.
by wycs 8y ago
Much of the value is standby time. Even if workers are doing very little most of the day, the fact that you can spin up a worker instantly (between 9 and 9) in China can make their companies extremely efficient.
57.
by wycs 8y ago
I don't know. Sometimes it is hard to argue with results. The pace of Chinese technological capitalism is staggering. Perhaps it is just a race to the bottom with working hours.
58.
The New Retirement Plan: Save Almost Everything, Spend Virtually Nothing(wsj.com)
62 points by wycs 8y ago|69 comments
59.
by wycs 8y ago
Then use your exit rights and don’t participate.
60.
by wycs 8y ago
>But like taxes, death is inevitable. Taxes yes, but I am not so sure about death.

More ›