[fthssht]

Looks like you've been reading Bostrom. I was actually annoyed about the amount of time he spent on the whole notion of genetically engineering smarter humans. I think his intent was to rigorously prove that even if technology for some reason halted and all progress in machine learning ended along with moore's law we'd still reach super intelligence. From that standpoint I get it as a philosopher to create a bulletproof argument. But I think it's very unlikely that it will happen that way. It's already far more practical to teach Watson to read better than genetically engineer a new Einstein. Also I don't think there's an iq 200 set of genes, there's probably trade offs that would prevent this a brain has a given number of neurons and they operate at a slow speed so this is like trying to breed a better horse when cars are obviously on the horizon and will be followed by jets.

[Moshe_Silnorin]

>The most likely approaches for increasing the intelligence of humans

I agree, given the gestation time of a human, AI may well come first. Even if we perfected iterated embryo selection today, 18 years is a lot of time and perhaps AI would be developed before the super geniuses reach peak productivity.

>Also I don't think there's an iq 200 set of genes, there's probably trade offs that would prevent this a brain has a given number of neurons and they operate at a slow speed so this is like trying to breed a better horse when cars are obviously on the horizon and will be followed by jets.

Everything I'm reading is saying the genes for IQ, as with most traits, are additive. And it really is as easy as putting as many high-IQ-associated genes into one genome as possible.

[ars]

> 18 years

Why 18 years? You can harvest fertile gametes much earlier than that in an ordinary person. And with some unethical drugs you can reduce that age even more.

Just watch out you don't end up selecting for early maturation :)

> Everything I'm reading is saying the genes for IQ, as with most traits, are additive. And it really is as easy as putting as many high-IQ-associated genes into one genome as possible.

High IQ's come with large tradeoffs. Foremost among them is a much higher rate of depression. Second among them is a reduction in socialization.

[rtl49]

Bear in mind that that each of the "high-IQ-associated genes" (alleles) is responsible for the synthesis of a polypeptide, and that the phenotypes produced by their interactions can be extremely difficult to predict.

I believe the studies you have in mind, one of which appeared on HN last week, find that high IQ is not associated with any small set of highly unusual alleles (i.e. "freak mutations"). This isn't to say that genetically engineering a person to have a high IQ is as simple as "putting as many high-IQ-associated genes into one genome as possible." It could be the case that certain specific interactions between the products of these alleles prove deleterious to the individual with respect to intelligence or other traits.

I agree that some of the sentiment on HN about the mutability of intelligence is wishful thinking, but our understanding of genomics and the genetic component of intelligence is still very much incomplete.

[Moshe_Silnorin]

I'm getting this from Hsu. He seems to think this will not be an issue: http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421

[bordercases]

Some equate I.Q. to "mutational load", meaning that the correction of factors interfering with genetic health gets you to a point where your I.Q. is maxed, not really anything else.

I still agree there are tradeoffs but I also doubt that mutational load is ignorable as a major driver of I.Q.; the implication being that if by removing mutation you improve intelligence, the body must be able to support a large I.Q. in the first place.

[c22]

Why not teach Watson to genetically engineer a new Einstein? Brains might be "slow" compared to modern tech, but they're terrifically more efficient. There may be some use to reverse engineering them yet.