Purplehermann

Nope. Raising children to be moral and not kill people is good. Stopping people (including by force) from being murderers is good.

Restrict AI the way you would if it were human

"Your kids should take one for society" is an atrocious pitch.

"Your kids should be stuck with people who ruin their lives because criminals are" is also terrible.

The correct response is moving problem kids to problem schools, then to disciplinary schools, and if necessary to juvy.

Put people where they belong, with the people they belong with.

Otherwise the people stuck with the trash will leave (and maybe that's okay in the end)

Well no, the environment is probably easier to deal with than our bodies, and we get replaced gen by gen.

The brain is insanely energy efficient, this is not the same as intelligence efficient

What if an app allows landlords to easily coordinate on prices?

The higher the margins, the more wealthy people will want to build houses to rent them out.

At some number of vacant houses the algorithm changes

Giving notice is helpful

A less quackish way to say the same thing is that a scientific paradigm tells people along which lines to look for answers. Looking at areas the paradigm doesn't recommend are generally not worthwhile, but occasionally you get something important, which doesn't fit in the current paradigm but will eventually help form the new paradigm.

A good heuristic could be "seems like a solid scientist in general, but this niche where he was a top level researcher led him to a split with the main stream" vs "consistently takes anti-mainstream views and has no contributions within the paradigm "

Well that's it then, we're gonna die

How could anything be positively predicted by gender? More seriously, selection effects should be much stronger than gender, age and ethnicity, and yet there should still be some correlation in one direction or another, wish there were power and confidence values given

Link?

When things are just.. wrong, there's not much reason to be specific. Especially when gwern.net has multiple long-form blog posts discussing these topics

While the author's framing is wrong, aren't there genes that have positive dominant effects and negative recessive effects?

On the one hand yes, on the other I want to genetically engineer chickens to lay multiple purple eggs daily

Depends how cheap gene editing gets. If you can mass-produce adenoviruses that improve iq 15 points and health significantly, that's going to be way cheaper than nutrition, forget education and of course opportunity.

Of course, better genes means nutrition, education and opportunity go further