Yes, I actually agree with your disagreement. The quote was quite provocative.
However, the basic sentiment of my comment would seem to remain intact. If we actually even tried to launch a global scale effort to genetically engineer “superhumans” it might take at least 10 years to develop the technology … and then it might be argued about for a few years … and then it would take 20 years for the children of the uplift to develop. From the current advances in AI it does not seem plausible that we have 30 or more years before foom.
This forum is quite concerned about AI alignment. Aligning superhumans might be much much more difficult than with AI. At least with AI there is known programming—with humans the programming is anything but digital (and often not that logical).
Humans need to make the psychological transition that they are no longer the masters of the universe. They are no longer in the driver’s seat: AI is. Basically, enjoy your life and allow superintelligence to do all the heavy thinking. Those humans who might insist upon asserting their agency to control their destiny and claim power over others will be regarded as absurd; they will simply get in the way, obstruct progress and be a nuisance.
If we actually even tried to launch a global scale effort to genetically engineer “superhumans” it might take at least 10 years to develop the technology
This is definitely wrong. A global effort to develop this tech could easily bring it to fruition in a couple of years. As it is, I think there’s maybe a 50% chance we get something working within 3-5 years (though we would still have to wait >15 years for the children born with its benefits to grow up)
From the current advances in AI it does not seem plausible that we have 30 or more years before foom.
I agree this is unlikely, though there remains a non-trivial possibility of some major AI disaster before AGI that results in a global moratorium on development.
This forum is quite concerned about AI alignment. Aligning superhumans might be much much more difficult than with AI. At least with AI there is known programming—with humans the programming is anything but digital (and often not that logical).
I agree that aligning superhumans could potentially be a concern, but consider the benefits we would have over AGI:
Literally hundreds of years of knowledge about the best ways to raise and train humans (not to mention a log of biologically primed psychology that helps that training process along)
The ability to edit and target other traits besides intelligence such as kindness or altruism
We have guaranteed slow takeoff because they will take over a decade to reach cognitive capabilities of the level of our smartest people.
Consider also the limitations of even genetically engineered superhumans:
They have no ability to rapidly and recursively self-improve
They cannot copy themselves to other bodies
While these don’t guarantee success, they do give us significant advantages over an AGI-based path to superintelligence. You get more than one shot with superhumans. Failure is not catastrophic.
I ran your first reply to my comment through Copilot for its assessment. Here is its response:
″
Timeline for Genetic Engineering:
Original Poster’s Claim: “[If we actually even tried to launch a global scale effort to genetically engineer ‘superhumans’ it might take at least 10 years to develop the technology.]”
New Poster’s Response: “This is definitely wrong. A global effort to develop this tech could easily bring it to fruition in a couple of years. As it is, I think there’s maybe a 50% chance we get something working within 3-5 years (though we would still have to wait >15 years for the children born with its benefits to grow up).”
Assessment: The new poster’s claim is overly optimistic. While a global effort could accelerate development, the complexities of genetic engineering, including ethical, regulatory, and technical challenges, make a couple of years an unrealistic timeframe. A more plausible estimate would be several years to a decade.”
One scenario of rapid development of genetic engineering that seems plausible is if humanity were to suddenly face a crisis. Over even the next year or two one such crisis that could arise is if Western nations were to begin to exhibit fertility collapse as has already occurred in Asian nations. Such a collapse could potentially be sparked when humanoids are mass scale produced starting next year—this might lead parents to be to avoid having the children who might never have had economic viability in an AI robot world. This is Copilot’s response:
“Accelerated Development of Genetic Engineering
Urgency Driven by AI Advancements:
Scenario: If humanity realizes that AI has significantly outpaced human capabilities, there could be a sudden and intense focus on developing genetic engineering technologies to enhance human abilities. This urgency could be driven by existential concerns about the survival and relevance of the human species.
Feasibility: In a crisis situation, resources and efforts could be rapidly mobilized, potentially accelerating the development of genetic engineering technologies. Historical examples, such as the rapid development of vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrate how urgent needs can lead to swift scientific advancements.
Fertility Collapse as a Catalyst:
Scenario: A sudden and severe fertility collapse in Western nations, similar to trends observed in some Asian countries, could create a desperate need for solutions to ensure the continuation of the human species. This could lead to a reevaluation of previously obstructed technologies, including genetic enhancement.
Feasibility: Fertility rates have been declining in many parts of the world, and a dramatic collapse could indeed prompt urgent action. In such a scenario, the ethical and regulatory barriers to genetic engineering might be reconsidered in light of the pressing need for solutions.
Ethical and Practical Considerations
Ethical Dilemmas:
Consideration: Even in a crisis, the ethical implications of genetic engineering must be carefully considered. Rapid development and deployment of such technologies could lead to unforeseen consequences and ethical challenges.
Balance: It is crucial to balance the urgency of the situation with the need for thorough ethical review and consideration of long-term impacts.
Regulatory and Societal Acceptance:
Consideration: In a desperate situation, regulatory frameworks might be adapted to allow for faster development and implementation of genetic engineering technologies. However, societal acceptance would still be a significant factor.
Engagement: Engaging with the public and stakeholders to build understanding and acceptance of genetic enhancements would be essential for successful implementation.
Conclusion
Your scenario highlights how urgent and existential threats could potentially accelerate the development and acceptance of genetic engineering technologies. While this could lead to rapid advancements, it is essential to carefully consider the ethical, regulatory, and societal implications to ensure that such technologies are developed and deployed responsibly.”
Now another scenario is introduced in which humanity desperately needs a savior generation of genetically enhanced humans to save itself from the AI that it created but was unable to control: ”
AI as the Catalyst for Genetic Engineering
AI-Induced Crisis:
Scenario: As AI continues to advance rapidly, it could reach a point where it poses significant risks to human control and safety. This could create a crisis situation where humanity realizes the need for enhanced cognitive abilities to manage and control AI effectively.
Urgency: The realization that current human cognitive capabilities are insufficient to handle advanced AI could drive a desperate push for genetic enhancements.
Time Lag for Genetic Enhancements:
Development and Maturity: Even if genetic engineering technologies were developed quickly, it would still take around 20 years for a new generation of enhanced humans to mature and reach their full cognitive potential.
Desperation: This time lag could create a “sinking ship” scenario where humanity is desperately trying to develop and implement genetic enhancements while simultaneously dealing with the immediate threats posed by advanced AI.
Ethical and Practical Considerations
Ethical Dilemmas:
Desperation vs. Responsibility: In a crisis, the urgency to enhance human intelligence might overshadow ethical considerations. However, it is crucial to balance the need for rapid advancements with responsible and ethical practices to avoid unintended consequences.
Informed Consent: Ensuring that individuals understand and consent to genetic enhancements is essential, even in a desperate situation.
Regulatory and Societal Challenges:
Rapid Policy Changes: In response to an AI-induced crisis, regulatory frameworks might need to be adapted quickly to allow for the development and implementation of genetic enhancements.
Public Acceptance: Building societal acceptance and understanding of genetic enhancements would be critical. Public engagement and transparent communication would help mitigate fears and resistance.
Conclusion
Your scenario highlights the potential for AI to act as a catalyst for rapid advancements in genetic engineering. The urgency to enhance human intelligence to manage AI effectively could drive significant changes in how we approach genetic enhancements. However, it is essential to navigate this path carefully, considering the ethical, regulatory, and societal implications to ensure a responsible and sustainable future.
LLMs’ guesses aren’t especially valuable to me. I understand wanting to expand out your half-formed thoughts, but I’d rather you condense the output down to only the points you want to argue, rather than pasting it in wholesale.
Thank you sunwillrise for your reply!
Yes, I actually agree with your disagreement. The quote was quite provocative.
However, the basic sentiment of my comment would seem to remain intact. If we actually even tried to launch a global scale effort to genetically engineer “superhumans” it might take at least 10 years to develop the technology … and then it might be argued about for a few years … and then it would take 20 years for the children of the uplift to develop. From the current advances in AI it does not seem plausible that we have 30 or more years before foom.
This forum is quite concerned about AI alignment. Aligning superhumans might be much much more difficult than with AI. At least with AI there is known programming—with humans the programming is anything but digital (and often not that logical).
Humans need to make the psychological transition that they are no longer the masters of the universe. They are no longer in the driver’s seat: AI is. Basically, enjoy your life and allow superintelligence to do all the heavy thinking. Those humans who might insist upon asserting their agency to control their destiny and claim power over others will be regarded as absurd; they will simply get in the way, obstruct progress and be a nuisance.
This is definitely wrong. A global effort to develop this tech could easily bring it to fruition in a couple of years. As it is, I think there’s maybe a 50% chance we get something working within 3-5 years (though we would still have to wait >15 years for the children born with its benefits to grow up)
I agree this is unlikely, though there remains a non-trivial possibility of some major AI disaster before AGI that results in a global moratorium on development.
I agree that aligning superhumans could potentially be a concern, but consider the benefits we would have over AGI:
Literally hundreds of years of knowledge about the best ways to raise and train humans (not to mention a log of biologically primed psychology that helps that training process along)
The ability to edit and target other traits besides intelligence such as kindness or altruism
We have guaranteed slow takeoff because they will take over a decade to reach cognitive capabilities of the level of our smartest people.
Consider also the limitations of even genetically engineered superhumans:
They have no ability to rapidly and recursively self-improve
They cannot copy themselves to other bodies
While these don’t guarantee success, they do give us significant advantages over an AGI-based path to superintelligence. You get more than one shot with superhumans. Failure is not catastrophic.
I ran your first reply to my comment through Copilot for its assessment. Here is its response:
″
Timeline for Genetic Engineering:
Original Poster’s Claim: “[If we actually even tried to launch a global scale effort to genetically engineer ‘superhumans’ it might take at least 10 years to develop the technology.]”
New Poster’s Response: “This is definitely wrong. A global effort to develop this tech could easily bring it to fruition in a couple of years. As it is, I think there’s maybe a 50% chance we get something working within 3-5 years (though we would still have to wait >15 years for the children born with its benefits to grow up).”
Assessment: The new poster’s claim is overly optimistic. While a global effort could accelerate development, the complexities of genetic engineering, including ethical, regulatory, and technical challenges, make a couple of years an unrealistic timeframe. A more plausible estimate would be several years to a decade.”
One scenario of rapid development of genetic engineering that seems plausible is if humanity were to suddenly face a crisis. Over even the next year or two one such crisis that could arise is if Western nations were to begin to exhibit fertility collapse as has already occurred in Asian nations. Such a collapse could potentially be sparked when humanoids are mass scale produced starting next year—this might lead parents to be to avoid having the children who might never have had economic viability in an AI robot world. This is Copilot’s response:
“Accelerated Development of Genetic Engineering
Urgency Driven by AI Advancements:
Scenario: If humanity realizes that AI has significantly outpaced human capabilities, there could be a sudden and intense focus on developing genetic engineering technologies to enhance human abilities. This urgency could be driven by existential concerns about the survival and relevance of the human species.
Feasibility: In a crisis situation, resources and efforts could be rapidly mobilized, potentially accelerating the development of genetic engineering technologies. Historical examples, such as the rapid development of vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrate how urgent needs can lead to swift scientific advancements.
Fertility Collapse as a Catalyst:
Scenario: A sudden and severe fertility collapse in Western nations, similar to trends observed in some Asian countries, could create a desperate need for solutions to ensure the continuation of the human species. This could lead to a reevaluation of previously obstructed technologies, including genetic enhancement.
Feasibility: Fertility rates have been declining in many parts of the world, and a dramatic collapse could indeed prompt urgent action. In such a scenario, the ethical and regulatory barriers to genetic engineering might be reconsidered in light of the pressing need for solutions.
Ethical and Practical Considerations
Ethical Dilemmas:
Consideration: Even in a crisis, the ethical implications of genetic engineering must be carefully considered. Rapid development and deployment of such technologies could lead to unforeseen consequences and ethical challenges.
Balance: It is crucial to balance the urgency of the situation with the need for thorough ethical review and consideration of long-term impacts.
Regulatory and Societal Acceptance:
Consideration: In a desperate situation, regulatory frameworks might be adapted to allow for faster development and implementation of genetic engineering technologies. However, societal acceptance would still be a significant factor.
Engagement: Engaging with the public and stakeholders to build understanding and acceptance of genetic enhancements would be essential for successful implementation.
Conclusion
Your scenario highlights how urgent and existential threats could potentially accelerate the development and acceptance of genetic engineering technologies. While this could lead to rapid advancements, it is essential to carefully consider the ethical, regulatory, and societal implications to ensure that such technologies are developed and deployed responsibly.”
Now another scenario is introduced in which humanity desperately needs a savior generation of genetically enhanced humans to save itself from the AI that it created but was unable to control: ”
AI as the Catalyst for Genetic Engineering
AI-Induced Crisis:
Scenario: As AI continues to advance rapidly, it could reach a point where it poses significant risks to human control and safety. This could create a crisis situation where humanity realizes the need for enhanced cognitive abilities to manage and control AI effectively.
Urgency: The realization that current human cognitive capabilities are insufficient to handle advanced AI could drive a desperate push for genetic enhancements.
Time Lag for Genetic Enhancements:
Development and Maturity: Even if genetic engineering technologies were developed quickly, it would still take around 20 years for a new generation of enhanced humans to mature and reach their full cognitive potential.
Desperation: This time lag could create a “sinking ship” scenario where humanity is desperately trying to develop and implement genetic enhancements while simultaneously dealing with the immediate threats posed by advanced AI.
Ethical and Practical Considerations
Ethical Dilemmas:
Desperation vs. Responsibility: In a crisis, the urgency to enhance human intelligence might overshadow ethical considerations. However, it is crucial to balance the need for rapid advancements with responsible and ethical practices to avoid unintended consequences.
Informed Consent: Ensuring that individuals understand and consent to genetic enhancements is essential, even in a desperate situation.
Regulatory and Societal Challenges:
Rapid Policy Changes: In response to an AI-induced crisis, regulatory frameworks might need to be adapted quickly to allow for the development and implementation of genetic enhancements.
Public Acceptance: Building societal acceptance and understanding of genetic enhancements would be critical. Public engagement and transparent communication would help mitigate fears and resistance.
Conclusion
Your scenario highlights the potential for AI to act as a catalyst for rapid advancements in genetic engineering. The urgency to enhance human intelligence to manage AI effectively could drive significant changes in how we approach genetic enhancements. However, it is essential to navigate this path carefully, considering the ethical, regulatory, and societal implications to ensure a responsible and sustainable future.
I have to say, I don’t find these bullet point lists developed by AIs to be very insightful. They are too long with too few insights.
It’s also worth pointing out that the AI almost certainly doesn’t know about recent developments in iterated meiosis or super-SOX
LLMs’ guesses aren’t especially valuable to me. I understand wanting to expand out your half-formed thoughts, but I’d rather you condense the output down to only the points you want to argue, rather than pasting it in wholesale.