The ramifications are likely to be pretty negligible. Genetic engineering of the human genome is a difficult and slow process—and machine intelligence will likely zoom past human intelligence without genetic engineering of humans making very much difference.
To improve effective intelligence in the mean time, better options appear to include education—and preprocessing human sensory inputs using machines, and post-processing their motor outputs using machines—i.e. intelligence augmentation.
Genetic engineering of the human genome is a difficult and slow process
We haven’t done it yet, so it’s hard to say, but once we have hard data on alleles responsible for IQ, creating a genome with the desired alleles seems substantially easier than creating AI. Why do you believe otherwise?
machine intelligence will likely zoom past human intelligence without genetic engineering of humans making very much difference.
I agree. The question isn’t will genetic engineering allow us to keep pace with machines. The question is how will genetic engineering affect the path taken toward the development of machine intelligence?
Combining existing alleles is relatively easy, yes. That happens by chance anyway, once in a while. However, with human development taking a couple of decades, that leads to a pretty slow build-test cycle. I figure we will probably have machine intelligence quite a while before the very first generation reaches maturity—in which case the significance will likely be extremely low.
Gene therapy is a bit different—though that has some problems of its own.
The benefit of engineering is that instead of a great combination happening once in a while it could very quickly happen 10 million times in just a few years.
However, with human development taking a couple of decades, that leads to a pretty slow build-test cycle.
The benefit of whole genome studies is that you don’t need to do multi-generational studies. You already know which allele combinations are gold. A single generation is enough.
I figure we will probably have machine intelligence quite a while before the very first generation reaches maturity—in which case the significance will likely be extremely low.
What are your time estimates for AI? Certainly AI could happen in less than 20 years. It could happen tomorrow. But if there is a substantial portion of the probability mass sitting past 20 years then I think it behooves us to seriously take into account the possible effects of genetic engineering.
I doubt there will be many adults who have been born with significantly engineered brains for a while past that—due to techincal problems, regulatory problems, etc. Anyway, I am not counselling ignoring the possible effects of genetic engineering—just estimating their probable impact on the run up to machine intelligence. As I said, too little, too late—I figure.
You can do some things with the existing variation. Not very much compared to what is possible with machines, though.
What’s important is how much compared to existing humans. The difference between a world class scientist and an average scientist is very important. That difference, multiplied by a thousand or a million individuals, can make a landslide difference in outcomes before AI has arrived.
I doubt there will be many adults who have been born with significantly engineered brains for a while past that—due to techincal problems, regulatory problems, etc.
It doesn’t seem regulatory problems will be an issue in China. Do you have a reason to believe otherwise? There will likely be technical problems, I agree, but do you really believe those problems are anyway near the level of difficulty of creating AI? Not to mention there is going to be much more money and effort spilled into genetic engineering research.
I think you must have a farther-out estimate of when machine intelligence is likely than me. There isn’t likely to be much time for germ-line genetic engineering of humans, I figure. So, on my timeline, it probably won’t make a landslide difference. It will probably make no difference at all.
China need more R+D at the moment. They won’t come into the picture for a while, regulations or no.
I don’t agree with you about how easy messing with the human genome is or about these projects’ respective funding, either.
We have made great progress augmenting human intelligence with machines. We have made negligible progress improving human intelligence by genetically engineering humans. The advantages of using machine augmentation will continue to grow—and will have become enormous by the time genetic engineering eventually gets around to producing some adult humans.
I don’t place AI so far out. I would be surprised if it took longer than 30 years. I think where we differ is for estimates on how hard genetic engineering is.
It’s true we haven’t had any success genetically engineering human intelligence. Nonetheless the tools we now have available are much more powerful. We simply couldn’t do Genome Wide Association Studies until recently, and still don’t quite have the ability to do them on huge scales. But it’s very likely that within just a couple of years million person studies will be happening.
It’s possible that such studies won’t turn up much. It’s also possible that huge numbers of alleles will be identified with statistically significant effects on IQ.
As Carl mentioned, constructing artificial gametes is also currently a limiting factor. But there is clearly a lot of work happening here. Craig Venter’s group, for instance, just constructed and rebooted the first artificial genome. That genome was much shorter than a human genome, of course, but it’s clear the fundamental idea is sound.
In my opinion these are the only two missing ingredients. That is: successful genome wide studies and the technology to make artificial gametes.
If these ingredients become available in the next couple of years, then it seems likely that large numbers of very smart adults will be around in about 25 years. Just in time to potentially make a huge difference in AI research.
I put a decent chunk of probability mass on AI occurring in less than 25 years, in which case none of this would matter. But I also put a decent chunk on 25+ years, and likewise a very good chunk on successful genetic engineering in the next 5 years (which, again, is where I think the core of our disagreement is).
Genetic engineering of the human genome is a difficult and slow process
Designing one new gene would be far beyond our capabilities. But choosing a set of good alleles based on genome-wide association studies would be trivial. Combining them together in a gamete would be difficult with current technology, but may become easy quickly. GM crops exist with IIRC at least 6 stable transgenes.
The ramifications are likely to be pretty negligible. Genetic engineering of the human genome is a difficult and slow process—and machine intelligence will likely zoom past human intelligence without genetic engineering of humans making very much difference.
To improve effective intelligence in the mean time, better options appear to include education—and preprocessing human sensory inputs using machines, and post-processing their motor outputs using machines—i.e. intelligence augmentation.
We haven’t done it yet, so it’s hard to say, but once we have hard data on alleles responsible for IQ, creating a genome with the desired alleles seems substantially easier than creating AI. Why do you believe otherwise?
I agree. The question isn’t will genetic engineering allow us to keep pace with machines. The question is how will genetic engineering affect the path taken toward the development of machine intelligence?
Combining existing alleles is relatively easy, yes. That happens by chance anyway, once in a while. However, with human development taking a couple of decades, that leads to a pretty slow build-test cycle. I figure we will probably have machine intelligence quite a while before the very first generation reaches maturity—in which case the significance will likely be extremely low.
Gene therapy is a bit different—though that has some problems of its own.
The benefit of engineering is that instead of a great combination happening once in a while it could very quickly happen 10 million times in just a few years.
The benefit of whole genome studies is that you don’t need to do multi-generational studies. You already know which allele combinations are gold. A single generation is enough.
What are your time estimates for AI? Certainly AI could happen in less than 20 years. It could happen tomorrow. But if there is a substantial portion of the probability mass sitting past 20 years then I think it behooves us to seriously take into account the possible effects of genetic engineering.
You can do some things with the existing variation. Not very much compared to what is possible with machines, though.
My time estimates have some probability mass past 2030:
http://alife.co.uk/essays/how_long_before_superintelligence/
I doubt there will be many adults who have been born with significantly engineered brains for a while past that—due to techincal problems, regulatory problems, etc. Anyway, I am not counselling ignoring the possible effects of genetic engineering—just estimating their probable impact on the run up to machine intelligence. As I said, too little, too late—I figure.
What’s important is how much compared to existing humans. The difference between a world class scientist and an average scientist is very important. That difference, multiplied by a thousand or a million individuals, can make a landslide difference in outcomes before AI has arrived.
It doesn’t seem regulatory problems will be an issue in China. Do you have a reason to believe otherwise? There will likely be technical problems, I agree, but do you really believe those problems are anyway near the level of difficulty of creating AI? Not to mention there is going to be much more money and effort spilled into genetic engineering research.
I think you must have a farther-out estimate of when machine intelligence is likely than me. There isn’t likely to be much time for germ-line genetic engineering of humans, I figure. So, on my timeline, it probably won’t make a landslide difference. It will probably make no difference at all.
China need more R+D at the moment. They won’t come into the picture for a while, regulations or no.
I don’t agree with you about how easy messing with the human genome is or about these projects’ respective funding, either.
We have made great progress augmenting human intelligence with machines. We have made negligible progress improving human intelligence by genetically engineering humans. The advantages of using machine augmentation will continue to grow—and will have become enormous by the time genetic engineering eventually gets around to producing some adult humans.
I don’t place AI so far out. I would be surprised if it took longer than 30 years. I think where we differ is for estimates on how hard genetic engineering is.
It’s true we haven’t had any success genetically engineering human intelligence. Nonetheless the tools we now have available are much more powerful. We simply couldn’t do Genome Wide Association Studies until recently, and still don’t quite have the ability to do them on huge scales. But it’s very likely that within just a couple of years million person studies will be happening.
It’s possible that such studies won’t turn up much. It’s also possible that huge numbers of alleles will be identified with statistically significant effects on IQ.
As Carl mentioned, constructing artificial gametes is also currently a limiting factor. But there is clearly a lot of work happening here. Craig Venter’s group, for instance, just constructed and rebooted the first artificial genome. That genome was much shorter than a human genome, of course, but it’s clear the fundamental idea is sound.
In my opinion these are the only two missing ingredients. That is: successful genome wide studies and the technology to make artificial gametes.
If these ingredients become available in the next couple of years, then it seems likely that large numbers of very smart adults will be around in about 25 years. Just in time to potentially make a huge difference in AI research.
I put a decent chunk of probability mass on AI occurring in less than 25 years, in which case none of this would matter. But I also put a decent chunk on 25+ years, and likewise a very good chunk on successful genetic engineering in the next 5 years (which, again, is where I think the core of our disagreement is).
Designing one new gene would be far beyond our capabilities. But choosing a set of good alleles based on genome-wide association studies would be trivial. Combining them together in a gamete would be difficult with current technology, but may become easy quickly. GM crops exist with IIRC at least 6 stable transgenes.