I think I’m more optimistic about starting with relatively weak intelligence augmentation. For now, I test my fluid intelligence at various times throughout the day (I’m working on better tests justified by algorithmic information theory in the style of Prof Hernandez-Orallo, like this one but it sucks to take https://github.com/mathemajician/AIQ but for now I use my own here: https://github.com/ColeWyeth/Brain-Training-Game), and I correlate the results with everything else I track about my lifestyle using reflect: https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/reflect-track-anything/id6463800032 which I endorse, though I should note it’s owned/invented by a couple of my friends/former coworkers. I’ll post some intermediate results soon. Obviously this kind of approach alone will probably only provide a low single digit IQ boost at most, but I think it makes sense to pick the low-hanging fruit first (then attempt incrementally harder stuff with the benefit of being slightly smarter). Also, accurate metrics and data collection should be established as early as possible. Ultimately I want to strap some AR goggles on and measure my fluid intelligence in real time ideally from eye movements in response to some subconscious stimulation (haven’t vetted the plausibility of this idea at all).
I think it makes sense to pick the low-hanging fruit first (then attempt incrementally harder stuff with the benefit of being slightly smarter)
No, this doesn’t make sense.
I think the stuff you’re doing is probably fun / cool / interesting / helpful / something you like. That’s great! You don’t need to make an excuse for doing it, in terms of something about something else.
But no, that’s not the right way to make really smart humans. The right way is to directly create the science and tech. You’re saying something like “it stands to reason that if we can get a 5% boost on general intelligence, we should do that first, and then apply that to the tech”. But
It’s not a 5% boost to the cognitive capabilities that are the actual bottlenecks to creating the more powerful tech. It’s less than that.
What you’re actually doing is doing the 5% boost, and never doing the other stuff. Doing the other stuff is better for the purposes of making a bunch of supergeniuses. (Which, again, doesn’t have to be your goal!)
I think there’s a reasonable chance everything you said is true, except:
What you’re actually doing is doing the 5% boost, and never doing the other stuff.
I intend to do the other stuff after finishing my PhD—though its not guaranteed I’ll follow through.
The next paragraph is low confidence because it is outside of my area of expertise (I work on agent foundations, not neuroscience):
The problem with neuralink etc. is that they’re trying to solve the bandwith problem which is not currently the bottleneck and will take too long to yield any benefits. A full neural lace is maybe similar to a technical solution to alignment in the sense that we won’t get either within 20 years at our current intelligence levels. Also, I am not in a position where I have enough confidence in my sanity and intelligence metrics to tamper with my brain by injecting neurons into it and stuff. On the other hand, even minor non-invasive general fluid intelligence increase at the top of the intelligence distribution would be incredibly valuable and profits could be reinvested in more hardcore augmentation down the line. I’d be interested to here where you disagree with this.
It almost goes without saying that if you can make substantial progress on the hardcore approaches that would be much, much more valuable than what I am suggesting, and I encourage you to try.
which is not currently the bottleneck and will take too long to yield any benefits
My guess is that it would be very hard to get to millions of connections, so maybe we agree, but I’m curious if you have more specific info. Why is it not the bottleneck though?
confidence in my sanity and intelligence metrics to tamper with my brain by injecting neurons into it and stuff.
That’s fair. Germline engineering is the best approach and mostly doesn’t have this problem—you’re piggybacking off of human-evolution’s knowledge about how to grow a healthy human.
minor non-invasive general fluid intelligence increase at the top of the intelligence distribution would be incredibly valuable and profits could be reinvested in more hardcore augmentation down the line
You’re talking about a handful of people, so the benefit can’t be that large. A repeatable method to make new supergeniuses is vastly more valuable.
My guess is that it would be very hard to get to millions of connections, so maybe we agree, but I’m curious if you have more specific info. Why is it not the bottleneck though?
I’m not a neuroscientist / cognitive scientist, but my impression is that rapid eye movements are already much faster than my conscious deliberation. Intuitively, this means there’s already a lot of potential communication / control / measurement bandwidth left on the table. There is definitely a point beyond which you can’t increase human intelligence without effectively adding more densely connected neurons or uploading and increasing clock speed. Honestly I don’t think I’m equipped to go deeper into the details here.
You’re talking about a handful of people, so the benefit can’t be that large.
I’m not sure I agree with either part of this sentence. If we had some really excellent intelligence augmentation software built into AR glasses we might boost on the order of thousands of people. Also I think the top 0.1% of people contribute a large chunk of economic productivity—say on the order of >5%.
I think I’m more optimistic about starting with relatively weak intelligence augmentation. For now, I test my fluid intelligence at various times throughout the day (I’m working on better tests justified by algorithmic information theory in the style of Prof Hernandez-Orallo, like this one but it sucks to take https://github.com/mathemajician/AIQ but for now I use my own here: https://github.com/ColeWyeth/Brain-Training-Game), and I correlate the results with everything else I track about my lifestyle using reflect: https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/reflect-track-anything/id6463800032 which I endorse, though I should note it’s owned/invented by a couple of my friends/former coworkers. I’ll post some intermediate results soon. Obviously this kind of approach alone will probably only provide a low single digit IQ boost at most, but I think it makes sense to pick the low-hanging fruit first (then attempt incrementally harder stuff with the benefit of being slightly smarter). Also, accurate metrics and data collection should be established as early as possible. Ultimately I want to strap some AR goggles on and measure my fluid intelligence in real time ideally from eye movements in response to some subconscious stimulation (haven’t vetted the plausibility of this idea at all).
No, this doesn’t make sense.
I think the stuff you’re doing is probably fun / cool / interesting / helpful / something you like. That’s great! You don’t need to make an excuse for doing it, in terms of something about something else.
But no, that’s not the right way to make really smart humans. The right way is to directly create the science and tech. You’re saying something like “it stands to reason that if we can get a 5% boost on general intelligence, we should do that first, and then apply that to the tech”. But
It’s not a 5% boost to the cognitive capabilities that are the actual bottlenecks to creating the more powerful tech. It’s less than that.
What you’re actually doing is doing the 5% boost, and never doing the other stuff. Doing the other stuff is better for the purposes of making a bunch of supergeniuses. (Which, again, doesn’t have to be your goal!)
I think there’s a reasonable chance everything you said is true, except:
I intend to do the other stuff after finishing my PhD—though its not guaranteed I’ll follow through.
The next paragraph is low confidence because it is outside of my area of expertise (I work on agent foundations, not neuroscience):
The problem with neuralink etc. is that they’re trying to solve the bandwith problem which is not currently the bottleneck and will take too long to yield any benefits. A full neural lace is maybe similar to a technical solution to alignment in the sense that we won’t get either within 20 years at our current intelligence levels. Also, I am not in a position where I have enough confidence in my sanity and intelligence metrics to tamper with my brain by injecting neurons into it and stuff. On the other hand, even minor non-invasive general fluid intelligence increase at the top of the intelligence distribution would be incredibly valuable and profits could be reinvested in more hardcore augmentation down the line. I’d be interested to here where you disagree with this.
It almost goes without saying that if you can make substantial progress on the hardcore approaches that would be much, much more valuable than what I am suggesting, and I encourage you to try.
My guess is that it would be very hard to get to millions of connections, so maybe we agree, but I’m curious if you have more specific info. Why is it not the bottleneck though?
That’s fair. Germline engineering is the best approach and mostly doesn’t have this problem—you’re piggybacking off of human-evolution’s knowledge about how to grow a healthy human.
You’re talking about a handful of people, so the benefit can’t be that large. A repeatable method to make new supergeniuses is vastly more valuable.
I’m not a neuroscientist / cognitive scientist, but my impression is that rapid eye movements are already much faster than my conscious deliberation. Intuitively, this means there’s already a lot of potential communication / control / measurement bandwidth left on the table. There is definitely a point beyond which you can’t increase human intelligence without effectively adding more densely connected neurons or uploading and increasing clock speed. Honestly I don’t think I’m equipped to go deeper into the details here.
I’m not sure I agree with either part of this sentence. If we had some really excellent intelligence augmentation software built into AR glasses we might boost on the order of thousands of people. Also I think the top 0.1% of people contribute a large chunk of economic productivity—say on the order of >5%.
I’m talking about neuron-neuron bandwith. https://tsvibt.blogspot.com/2022/11/prosthetic-connectivity.html
I agree that neuron-computer bandwidth has easier ways to improve it—but I don’t think that bandwidth matters very much.
Personally I’m unlikely to increase my neuron-neuron bandwidth anytime soon, sounds like a very risky intervention even if possible.