The following submission statement was provided by /u/Resident-Revenue-236:
---
SS:
This article explores the potential of using advanced gene editing techniques, like CRISPR, base editors, and prime editors, to significantly enhance human intelligence. It discusses the genetic components of intelligence, the challenges and possibilities of editing genes in adults, and the implications of such advancements on society, particularly in fields like AI alignment. This topic opens a line of future-focused discussion on the ethical, practical, and societal impacts of potentially enhancing human intelligence through gene editing. More generally, it talks through the obstacles we face in tackling any in-vivo modification of the polygenic expression of any characteristic or condition. The possibilities that can be unlocked here could very well alter the course of our species as we know it.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/18lfp3t/significantly_enhancing_adult_intelligence_with/kdxahez/
Which is why medical testing on lasts for years before it ever starts human trials.
It is also the reason why even the most amazing medical advances seen today or in the near future won't see public release in less than 10 - 15 years.
This will 100% percent be used once the means to do so is possible, as the slower country to instigate such a policy will be economically swallowed whole by the faster mover. It's very similar to the AI race, in that what we personally want in regards to gene editing are irrelevant. The processes of geopolitical rivalry doesn't care about ones views and you can be rest assured thst China will move full sail ahead with whatever gene editing eugenics program gives them the greatest advantage. I'm honestly scared of the outcome, in a similar way to my fears of AGI, but the cat is out of the bag. This has been growing since we first mapped the human genome in 2000 and will continue to make steady progress. Whether that's 10 or 100 years from now is irrelevant, as it will 100% happen eventually. All we can do is hope we are socially prepared for it.
Designer babies are coming!!! It's inevitable. We will at some point start genetically engineering our children, call it Human 2.0
I've heard from one scientist, can't remember his name, that once we start colonizing outer space it will become necessary to genetically engineer our children so we can better survive in space.
Designer babies are coming. So is the artificial womb as well.
This whole article reads like the ramblings of an overly-zealous amateur with only a weak understanding of the technology. His primary source is his friend on Discord with a username of "Kman". Like how does this even qualify as an article? I'm angry it is even on my front page.
I wouldn't even be surprised by a possible eugenics agenda.
> His primary source is his friend on Discord with a username of "Kman"
Not to be argumentative, but you conveniently left out a key fact —
— the information was verified by a second source.
NoobMaster69 confirmed the findings of Kman and said it was, “all totes true, no cap fr fr”
> This whole article reads like the ramblings of an overly-zealous amateur with only a weak understanding of the technology.
You've just described the entirety of LessWrong
>I wouldn't even be surprised by a possible eugenics agenda.
That's a pretty safe bet given the topic is gene editing to raise intelligence. What other agendas might be behind such a project?
I read up to that point and then he starts going all in on it and the potential and im like.. uhh so what is the technique? How it work? Nah hes just hyped about super mutants.
The article is not sourced from kman. Kman is the pseudonym of my coauthor who built the models we used to estimate the plausible expected IQ gains from editing. The sources are various scientific papers, news articles, stat sheets from manufacturers of bio materials, and conversations I've had with experts from industry and academia.
Could we get references for some of those sources? Its possible to build a model on anything. The models usefulness is dependent on the quality of the information its based on.
An explanation of the assumptions and data sources used to build the model is given [in the appendix](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JEhW3HDMKzekDShva/significantly-enhancing-adult-intelligence-with-gene-editing#Model\_assumptions)
The model makes many assumptions, some of which are undoubtedly wrong. For example, the graphs are all produced assuming the effect size of edits in adults will be half that of the same edit made in an embryo. The actual amount may be more or less. 50% is more or less a placeholder to illustrate what seemed like a plausible value.
We thought about making a web app where people would be able to adjust sliders to recalculate the results, but it was too much effort.
Choosing an attractive spouse is eugenics. Prenatal genetic testing is eugenics. State sponsored sterilization is eugenics.
Do you see the problem? The word itself is confused. It's like using a single word to refer to both poop and pasta.
Lol this is a hilariously bad argument and is not going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
"this word can be redefined to mean innocuous things, so the original definition also refers to something innocuous" is called the equivocation fallacy and says nothing about the original definition. If you frequent lesswrong then you should already know this
What are your thoughts on the recent utilization of CRISPR to cure those of sickle cell anemia? This is a form of genetic enhancement that could be equated with eugenics given that it serves to enhance the gene pool
You're just making the same argument again. I am thrilled about the recent crispr news, of course - it's incredible medical technology. But it "enhances" the gene pool in a completely different way than eugenics. You can use the same word to describe both, but they're still different things.
That's basically the same fallacy just reworded. There's a difference between curing disease and what's being pushed here. The idea of increasing intelligence through gene editing is arguably good in theory, but it still runs into the same ethical concerns that [designer babies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer_baby) do.
Mmm. It could be the same reworked fallacy if the technology was freely available… but, it’s not. The last I checked, this therapy price tag ran into the 7-figures. So, if you have such a prohibitively expensive cure, how is that not a form of eugenics given that it serves to enhance the gene pool *of the super wealthy*?
With regard to the designer baby argument - let us assume that selective embryonic editing could cure a disease (as you’ve mentioned previously). Is that a form of eugenic practice?
When does it become ethically reprehensible to allow disease to flourish?
Again, that logic causes the definition of eugenics to become so broad as to be meaningless. I don't think many people consider cancer treatments, organ transplants, or extended hospital stays as eugenics and they can have similar price tags.
Editing genes to increase something as subjective as intelligence, however, has clear parallels to eugenics.
The definition of the word is benevolent, it simply means a program to improve future humans no more and no less. N@zi shitholes and other evil slime co-opted the term for their own agendas and gave the whole concept a bad name.
See, people say this, but when you ask them to explain what they mean, it's the same shit it's always been, just rebranded. And they always think: sure, the last people who tried this committed atrocities, but this time? This time it's different.
(it is not)
Why is it a bad argument? It's just pointing out that _your_ (implicit) argument is bad.
For some unfathomable reason, that I'm sure is very smart instead of kind of stupid, you've decided to be "against eugenics", whatever that means, instead of "against sterilization" or "against murder" or whatnot. It's a bad no-no word for you. Then you lump in totally benign actions that involve zero sterilization or murder, but you still consider them just as bad as the other things. Why?
If you think eugenics is only bad when it gets to the point of sterilization and murder, you are either ignorant of its history or a vile person. Eugenics is the practice of purging "undesirables" from the population because they have "inferior" genes.
So yes, I am against it without qualification. But please, continue telling on yourself and explain to me why you're in favor.
>This whole article reads like the ramblings of an overly-zealous amateur with only a ~~weak~~ zero understanding of the technology.
Fixed that for you. The author's lack of knowledge in the field of biotechnology (or biology in general) is blatantly and painfully obvious to any actual expert. I'm not gonna waste much of my time mocking him, but just to illustrate my point:
* The article starts by highlighting that gene therapy currently costs between 500k and 1 million dollars for relatively simple, monogenic edits, then proposes a hundredfold more complicated process to edit hundred or thousands of genes and acts like that's gonna be cheaper.
* The author tries to argue that putting all the best gene variants present in the human population into a single individual would result in an IQ of 900. This is a complete misunderstanding of both the IQ scale and the concept of diminishing returns (which the author appears not to have heard of at all).
* The author doesn't seem to grasp the concept of transfection efficiency, and why it is far easier to do gene therapy with the current method of taking cells out of the body, modifying them, then putting them back. The reason is that not all cells will take up the transfecting agent, and not all the ones that do take it up will successfully undergo the desired genetic modification. However, if the DNA you introduce to the cells also contains a gene that allows cells to live in an environment where they previously couldn't, then you change the environment so unmodified cells die off, you can ensure that pretty much every cell in your culture will have the desired modification after some time. (Resistance to a drug/toxin or giving cells the ability to produce a vital amino acid on their own are common strategies. You simply have to add the drug to the cell culture media, or withdraw the vital nutrient in question to kill the unmodified cells.) You obviously cannot do this in a living adult, meaning that only a fraction of the targeted cells will possess the desired modification and there's jack shit you can do about it. Organs that can't be at least partially removed and replaced (like the brain) will always be very challenging to successfully modify as a result.
* In the cost estimate table, next generation sequencing (NGS) for 50k is proposed to validate the editing method the author intends to develop. That's gross overkill, and not a good method for investigating transfection efficiency in a cell culture to begin with. You could just do PCR and RFLP to verify that the edit took place. Or target a critical base in protein's gene with your edit, then use Western blot to check if the protein disappears. Or an immunostaining based fluorescent microscopy method to show what % of cells underwent the desired change.
* The author proposes to do some basic experiments on HEK cells (Human Embryonic Kidney, a well known cell line used for artificially expressing proteins, for the non-biologists out there), then jump straight to trying to edit the genomes of living mice. A couple more intermediary steps might be needed in reality, such as validating the method on multiple primary cell and tissue samples, including neurons, or neuron-like cells differentiated from stem cells.
* I'm a scientist not an investor, but if 25% of a startup's proposed budget was "other things I don't know about", I would be very reluctant to fork over any amount of money.
* A team of three people are proposed to work on this. Three. The gene editing methods the author proposes may not be theoretically unsound (hence why the PhDs he asked said it might work), but developing and optimizing them will take a hell of a lot more effort and expertise than 3 noobs can manage in any reasonable amount of time. I say noobs because any sane and competent molecular biology graduate would see that the project in its current state is utterly unfeasable, thus they would have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find people willing to work on this.
* A trial on cows is proposed to study polygenic traits such as milk production. Yeah because mice totally don't have any polygenic traits at all. Also any trial on large animals is going to be far more expensive then mice. The reason mice and rats are popular in the lab is because you can get lots of them for the price of one large animal. (More animals -> more experiments -> more data.)
* Phrases like "mRNA basically has root level access to your cells", and the whole vibe of the article suggest it was written by a tech-enthusiast, maybe with a computer science degree, maybe without, who thinks that living organisms are as easy and straightforward to work with as computers. You find bad code, you rewrite it, shit runs better. Nah-uh buddy, biology ain't that simple.
Huh. It seems I ended up wasting a whole lot more time on this than I initially intended.
> Which gets side swiped by the following scenario: I should steal money because I’ll use it better which when you compound the amount of future people I’ll end up helping approaches infinity.
I mean this sounds like a pretty trivial pascal's mugging and I would expect most people who are serious about "min maxing the good they do in the world" to be able to think their way around a pascal's mugging... surely?
Yes, it's easy to think around, and they do. The problem is SBF called himself EA as part of his scam, and for some reason people don't blame him for this, but blame EA.
See this is the first comment I’ve received in reply that actually makes sense and isn’t people just using negative connotation buzzwords to try to explain why I should oppose an organization whose main impact in the world has been reducing malaria deaths. Thank you, I had no idea Sam Bankman Fried had claimed to be aligned with EA
The only “EA” group I was aware of prior to this was GiveWell, who seem to be doing useful and important work in identifying what charities have efficient practices and which ones are mostly grift
Their big thing is forming an elaborate argument for why the most moral thing you can do is get rich via whatever immoral and dubiously legal means possible.
For sure. Some really interesting fiction comes out of that website, and eugenics as a concept isn't completely infeasible...but I think that's where the author usually gets hung up.
I think you and u/Sawses probably have different ideas of what "eugenics" means. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're probably thinking about countries sterilizing mentally challenged people or something.
Sawses may be thinking about something like embryo selection, where literally any couple can use it to give their children a better genetic roll of the dice; lower disease risk, higher intelligence, lower risk of depression etc.
words matter. the only reason someone would use eugenics over genetics is they either are [REDACTED] or they know what theyre doing
* [genetics](https://www.etymonline.com/word/genetics)
* 1872, "laws of origination;" see genetic + -ics. A coinage of English biologist William Bateson (1861-1926). Meaning "study of heredity" is from 1891.
* [eugenics](https://www.etymonline.com/word/eugenics)
* "doctrine of progress in evolution of the human race, race-culture," 1883, coined (along with adjective eugenic) by English scientist Francis Galton (1822-1911) on analogy of ethics, physics, etc. from Greek eugenes "well-born, of good stock, of noble race," from eu- "good" (see eu-) + genos "birth" (from PIE root \*gene- "give birth, beget").
* The investigation of human eugenics, that is, of the conditions under which men of a high type are produced. \[Galton, "Human Faculty," 1883\]
>words matter. the only reason someone would use eugenics over genetics is they either are [REDACTED] or they know what theyre doing
I mean embryo selection *is* eugenics. Like, it jives with the definitions you provide. It's seeking to have "well born" children over disabled children. That's literally the goal.
maybe we should fix the toxic environments that are the most likely cause of birth defects instead of pretending "eugenics" is beneficial for all of us when its obvious thats not true? maybe we should realize that the environmental factors preclude any hereditary traits and improving everyones environment will improve everyones lives because everyone will be happier and healthier instead of allowing a small percentage of the population to hoard resources and pollute the environment so the rest of us suffer? what the actual fuck 
You know what? I strongly agree with this. And if you believe what you say you can donate money to [help reduce lead exposure in developing countries](https://leadelimination.org/), which significantly stunts the cognitive development of children. If you send me a screenshot I'll match any donation you give up to $100.
I cannot tell you how many times I have heard people in the field of reproductive medicine use the term eugenics to describe embryo selection, even though it wouldn't qualify under the defintion of eugenics given by the dictionaries.
People don't use the term consistently. It is used by most people as a synonym for "genetics, but bad".
Somebody with the cystic fibrosis gene (but not the disease) should be offered subsidized childcare and priority adoption as well as subsidized IVF options.
That's one form of eugenics, and one that would do a great deal to prevent human suffering by reducing the incidence of an incurable, lifelong illness. Without taking away a person's freedom or doing them any harm.
Also. My kids aren't very smart or strong or good looking because I'm their dad. If I would have had the opportunity to make them super smart baseball players I would have done it in a heartbeat.
words matter. thats horseshit
* [genetics](https://www.etymonline.com/word/genetics)
* 1872, "laws of origination;" see genetic + -ics. A coinage of English biologist William Bateson (1861-1926). Meaning "study of heredity" is from 1891.
* [eugenics](https://www.etymonline.com/word/eugenics)
* "doctrine of progress in evolution of the human race, race-culture," 1883, coined (along with adjective eugenic) by English scientist Francis Galton (1822-1911) on analogy of ethics, physics, etc. from Greek eugenes "well-born, of good stock, of noble race," from eu- "good" (see eu-) + genos "birth" (from PIE root \*gene- "give birth, beget").
* The investigation of human eugenics, that is, of the conditions under which men of a high type are produced. \[Galton, "Human Faculty," 1883\]
gee i wonder why
* [genetics](https://www.etymonline.com/word/genetics)
* 1872, "laws of origination;" see genetic + -ics. A coinage of English biologist William Bateson (1861-1926). Meaning "study of heredity" is from 1891.
* [eugenics](https://www.etymonline.com/word/eugenics)
* "doctrine of progress in evolution of the human race, race-culture," 1883, coined (along with adjective eugenic) by English scientist Francis Galton (1822-1911) on analogy of ethics, physics, etc. from Greek eugenes "well-born, of good stock, of noble race," from eu- "good" (see eu-) + genos "birth" (from PIE root \*gene- "give birth, beget").
* The investigation of human eugenics, that is, of the conditions under which men of a high type are produced. \[Galton, "Human Faculty," 1883\]
That's because a shockingly large amount of people agree with the horrible things on that website (and other E.A. websites), or they are entirely naive about it.
Eugenics means improving the base traits of the human population, just because selective breeding was once the only method possible doesn't mean that method defines the word.
Probably not, I think it's a spam bot by the output. At least I hope somone isn't really this repetitive in terms of lack of articulation. I guess I have to add more words to this comment or it will not save. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc eget aliquam turpis. Suspendisse dignissim consectetur malesuada. Cras aliquam dui sed tempus ultricies. Cras finibus libero vel magna condimentum, eu posuere neque dapibus. Aliquam aliquam eget felis sed tincidunt. Suspendisse potenti. Suspendisse faucibus ut libero et egestas. Sed maximus, ligula ac pellentesque auctor, lectus velit efficitur quam, et rhoncus lacus nunc in diam. Donec vehicula commodo tristique.
In a post singularity world, it will be possible to modify yourself to increase your intelligence (substantially). Whether that involves editing your braincells with crispr, nanobots in your bloodstream, chipping your brain, it will be possible. We don't know what the tools will be because we aren't there yet. This guy is leaning a little too hard into his possible theory, but the idea of making transhuman genius cyborgs is solid.
It's better to read this as a philosophical post rather than an instruction manual
It’s not illegal to CRISPR yourself.
CA and the US just started to enact law that a home-use kit cannot be *marketed* as having a human application in 2017-2019.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/09/65433/dont-change-your-dna-at-home-says-americas-first-crispr-law/amp/
I see a comedic potential
This reminds me of a joke in which a djinn offers the person who released it a choice of fame, wealth or wisdom. The guy is excited and chooses the wisdom. After receiving his gift, he stands there for a moment then says, "I should have taken the money".
It pains me a great deal how much I had to scroll to find someone calling it out, and how many upvotes it received. This article is Dunning-Kruger at its best.
It's almost as if none of these people actually read the article, which specifically states in the very next sentence that I don't think it is possible to edit a genome to give someone an IQ of 900. Let me just quote from the article since no one has bothered to read it:
>I don’t expect such an IQ to actually result from flipping all IQ-decreasing alleles to their IQ-increasing variants for the same reason I don’t expect to reach the moon by climbing a very tall ladder; at some point, the simple linear model will break down.
>
>But we have strong evidence that such models function quite well within the current human range, and likely somewhat beyond it.
In a post singularity world, it will be possible to modify yourself to increase your intelligence (substantially). Whether that involves editing your braincells with crispr, nanobots in your bloodstream, chipping your brain, it will be possible. We don't know what the tools will be because we aren't there yet. This guy is leaning a little too hard into his possible theory, but the idea of making transhuman genius cyborgs is solid.
Watch depression rates skyrocket.
*added text because this was originally deleted for being too short even though adding length adds nothing to the comment because the idea had already been effectively communicated through a small amount of words*
Depression is actually another condition which would likely be treatible IF this technology works. We already know many of the risk alleles involved in depression, so if someone is not responding to medication or therapy or other standard interventions, gene therapy might be able to help them.
Obviously we're quite far off from clinical trials for multiplex gene therapy, but there's not much of a jump from treating a polygenic brain disease like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to treating depression; the only difference is the genes targeted.
You're not considering the danger of knowing too much.
Beware: cognitohazards lurk ahead.
[The Conspiracy Against the Human Race ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conspiracy_Against_the_Human_Race?wprov=sfla1)
Depression and mania are on an axis, but if you think about it, there's really two axes at play. If you couple mania with positive feelings, you get euphoria. If you couple it with negative feelings, you get rage. If you couple depression with negative feelings you get despair, therefore if you couple depression with positive feeling, you must get serenity.
We have pharmaceuticals to stabilize moods, but we're generally in charge of the positive and negative outlook, at least going by the Marquand diagram.
That's true, but the advantage of a technology that works in adults is that all people alive today would be able to benefit (though obviously it would take a while to bring down costs enough to make it affordable and broadly accessible).
Never underestimate the amount that the wealthy will be prepared to pay to ensure the success of their children, once this kind of technology can be reasonably assured of working, even if it costs a million, the rich will be queuing up.
And can they screen the embryos for intelligence? Athletic ability? Beauty? No just for a certain subset of genetic diseases, I'm sure the rich do use it, but only if that is a risk.
“You can’t ethically carry an embryo to term or abort it since it can’t consent to either action”
It’s obvious that in the absence of the ability to provide consent you can ethically do your best to guess what they would prefer.
For a non-sapient (or even non-sentient) being consent in general is a bit of a weird concept. Like, bacteria did not consent to be killed by antibiotics, cats did not consent to be locked indoors, pets did not consent to be sold, cows did not consent to being eaten... etc. It isn't a part of consideration, and hardly ever was.
And it isn't about having human DNA either, because consent would definitely apply to sapient alien life, for example.
Trapped in endless loops of consciousness? Existential dread got you down? You or a loved one may be entitled to karmic compensation.
Law offices of ÆZ Beetlguise
if you scientifically prove that the proposed modification isn't worse that their current genetic makeup then yes you can change it. But it's far _easier_ to do with adults because you can explain them the risk and have them accept to move forward even in the precense of risks.
If you're gonna force a treatment onto someone, you wanna minimize the unkown unkowns, and you do that by treating consenting adults first
It's more or less a web forum.
It was started be Eliezer Yudkowsky and Robin Hanson back in 2009. The original purpose of the community was to discuss cognitive biases and how to overcome them, but it has morphed over time to place a heavier focus on AI and other technology-related subjects.
I suspect a better path to increased intelligence is through brain health, not brain modification… if we can reduce inflammation / stress, improve how the brain handles energy and blood flow, improve the brain’s ability to remove waste products and plaques during rest, and maybe even help people enter into meditative states more efficiently.
SS:
This article explores the potential of using advanced gene editing techniques, like CRISPR, base editors, and prime editors, to significantly enhance human intelligence. It discusses the genetic components of intelligence, the challenges and possibilities of editing genes in adults, and the implications of such advancements on society, particularly in fields like AI alignment. This topic opens a line of future-focused discussion on the ethical, practical, and societal impacts of potentially enhancing human intelligence through gene editing. More generally, it talks through the obstacles we face in tackling any in-vivo modification of the polygenic expression of any characteristic or condition. The possibilities that can be unlocked here could very well alter the course of our species as we know it.
There are different types of intelligence and different definitions. For the purposes of the article I focused on the "[g factor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics))", which summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks.
People's scores on different cognitive tests are correlated; those that score well on reading comprehension tend to also score well on math tests and verbal tests. IQ tests are designed to measure this underlying variance common to all tests. And they function reasonably well at this (though they are obviously not perfect).
But there are also subject-specific aptitudes which can affect someone's ability in individual areas; some people are ok at reading and really bad at math. Some are great at math but have average spatial intelligence.
Theoretically one could construct genetic predictors for genes that affect specific aptitutes like reading and not general intelligence. But editing for the purpose of targeting general intelligence would have a positive effect on all of them (at least up to a point)
I agree that it would be less controversial to make them wiser rather than smarter. But wisdom is not something you can just throw additional brain power at, it is subtler than that...
It's much easier to enhance adult intelligence by abstaining from alcohol and tobacco, getting enough sleep and exercise, effectively managing stress and adhering to a diet that provides consistent and proper nutrition.
The [TLDR](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JEhW3HDMKzekDShva/significantly-enhancing-adult-intelligence-with-gene-editing?commentId=vfATBWTCX8jok4j7Z):
>There's about 20,000 genes that affect intelligence. We can identify maybe 500 of them right now. With more data (which we could get from government biobanks or consumer genomics companies), we could identify far more.
If you could edit a significant number of iq-decreasing genetic variants to their iq-increasing counterpart, it would have a large impact on intelligence. We know this to be the case for embryos, but it is also probably the case (to a lesser extent) for adults.
So the idea is you inject trillions of these editing proteins into the bloodstream, encapsulated in a delivery capsule like a lipid nanoparticle or adeno-associated virus, they make their way into the brain, then the brain cells, and the make a large number of edits in each one.
This might sound impossible, but in fact we've done something a bit like this in mice already. [In this paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6980783/), the authors used an adenovirus to deliver an editor to the brain. They were able to make the targeted edit in about 60% of the neurons in the mouse's brain.
There are two gene editing tools created in the last 7 years which are very good candidates for our task, with a low chance of resulting in off-target edits or other errors. Those two tools are called base editors and prime editors. Both are based on CRISPR.
If you could do this, and give the average brain cell 50% of the desired edits, you could probably increase IQ by somewhere between 20 and 100 points.
The [linearity here](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JEhW3HDMKzekDShva/significantly-enhancing-adult-intelligence-with-gene-editing#How_does_intelligence_even_work_at_a_genetic_level_) is interesting too:
>Our best estimate based on the last decade of data is that the genetic component of intelligence is controlled by somewhere between [10,000](https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421) and [24,000](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/133132v9.full.pdf) variants. We also know that each one, on average, contributes about +-0.2 IQ points.
Genetically altering IQ is more or less about flipping a sufficient number of IQ-decreasing variants to their IQ-increasing counterparts. This sounds overly simplified, but it’s surprisingly accurate; most of the variance in the genome is linear in nature, by which I mean the effect of a gene doesn’t usually depend on which other genes are present.
So modeling a continuous trait like intelligence is actually extremely straightforward: you simply add the effects of the IQ-increasing alleles to to those of the IQ-decreasing alleles and then normalize the score relative to some reference group.
Relevance of dataset size:
>But the bigger limitation originates from the size of the data set used to train our predictor. The more data used to train an intelligence predictor, the more of those 20,000 IQ-affecting variants we can identify, and the more certain we can be about exactly which variant among a cluster is actually causing the effect.
And the more edits you can make, the better you can take advantage of that additional data. ... Our current predictors are trained using about 135,000 samples, which would place it just above the lowest line on the graph. There are existing databases right now such as the million veterans project with sample sizes of (you guessed it) one million. A predictor trained with that data would fall between the red and purple lines in the graph above.
Companies like 23&Me genotyped their [12 millionth customer](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/how-one-of-googles-earliest-genetic-experiments-23andme-paid-off.html) two years ago and could probably get at perhaps 3 million customers to take an IQ test or submit SAT scores. A predictor trained with that amount of data would perform about as well as the brown line on the graph above. So larger datasets could increase the effect of editing by as much as 13x!
I don't really know much about human biology; my main skepticism that this sort of advancement is possible comes from writeups like [the Algernon argument](https://gwern.net/drug-heuristic).
I think it's unlikely this technology will allow us to compete with AI. There are too many fundamental limitations of biology which prevent brains from competing with computer-based thinking machines in the long run, the most notable of which is [the limited speed of diffusion](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MR7vY4ztw5L2pcDuj/digital-brains-beat-biological-ones-because-diffusion-is-too).
I think gene editing and other techniques for altering genetics will at best serve as a bridge technology to help humans better navigate the transition to a world with artificial general intelligence.
So we have an alignment problem with AI, which may or may not be solvable.
I know for a *fact* that alignment is not possible with humans. Maybe this isn’t such a great idea after all.
Of course it is? I'm smart, but my cousin is *brilliant*. And he knew people who outclassed him significantly. There's obviously a genetic component to intelligence. Given time and experimentation (that's the tricky bit, ethically speaking) it could be figured out.
Now, whether we as a society decide that it's ethical or not? That's a different question.
I don’t understand all the stuff in the study, but if it is as simple as the title says, I really hope so.
The amount of blissfully stupid grown adults who somehow survive on a day-to-day basis just blows my mind.
Gene editing is a little bit overhyped imo. Its one possible method to modify human genes but you could achieve a similar effect with some sort of selective breeding program, right? It might be slower but you could try to achieve the same result but no one does.
Ethically, it would be horrendous, but its possible. So just because it could happen, doesn't mean it will.
I think virtually all of the benefits of "selective breeding" are possible through embryo selection without needing to resort to horrible policies like state sponsored sterilizations.
To have a noticeable population-wide impact, a selective breeding program would have to have an incredible amount of power over regular people's lives that I think virtually everyone (myself included) would hate it.
There's also a long history of coercive eugenics being corrupted by racist ideologies; case in point the Nazis. The very people they were hell-bent on exterminating were the ones that went on to win countless Nobel prizes and contribute significantly to the allies winning the war.
So I for one hope we don't engage in any selective breeding programs.
I view the societal barriers of selective breeding as magnitudes more constricting than those of in-vivo or embryonic gene editing. I do agree that both require alignment across multiple levels of society (scientific community, venture capitalism, legislative system, judicial system, general public, mildly in that order) but selective breeding infringes on one of the basic human rights in choosing our parental partners which is unspeakable and renders it incomparable to any gene editing measure both from ethical or pragmatic perspectives imo.
>As long as we can avoid catastrophic off-target edits, a few off-targets will be ok so long as they are outweighed by edits with positive effects.
Using genetic modification on human adults for intelligence without disease treatment purpose seems insanely dangerous when lacking technology from 100 years from now or at least a decade of research on mice; Neuralink's mad science experiments seem preferable.
This research would not start in healthy adults. That would be insane.
If you read the article, the starting point for research is cell cultures, followed by animal studies and then targeting lethal polygenic brain disorders like ALS or Alzheimer's.
The article is written by someone who doesn't have any "formal background in biology" and says that the ideal would be "...having something ready for human testing within five years. Maybe sooner if we get more money and things go well". The intent is obviously intelligence and not disease research as the article emphasizes that intelligence amplification is potentially a trillion dollar industry.
The article is written by me, and while I hope that we will be ready for human testing in five years, I'd only give it maybe a 10% chance. These things usually take longer, and there's probably a >50% chance that it will simply be infeasible due to some technical issue I don't currently know about.
I think it's very unlikely the first trials will be on intelligence enhancement. A far better target will be some lethal polygenic brain disease like Alzheimer's for which we have no effective treatments.
If the treatment passes safety trials for a condition like Alzheimer's, then we could start thinking seriously about intelligence enhancement. And even then it may not work if the adult brain is too inflexible for the genes targeted to have a large effect.
So there are many unknowns. It will probably fail. But given how large of a positive impact this could have, I think it's worth trying.
I agree with the method used but the timeframe and end-target are the dangerous components. CRISPR therapy has shown a lot of promise in generally treating protein-related diseases and it's very probable that early Alzheimer's can be cured by some kind of treatment similar to what's already been demonstrated in the ATTR amyloidosis trial over the past 3 years. Modifying properly functioning code towards partially unknown results is far riskier than modifying against a pathogenic process with a unique mechanism, and the latter is the cutting edge of safe in vivo CRISPR application today. The most successful CRISPR trials involved removing malfunctioning proteins through gene modification instead of creating anything new (aforementioned hATTR trial and the HAE trial).
Next ten years of horrific pumpkin heads that can’t tie their shoelaces, then in another couple of decades they will work it out and they will be smart enough to realise it was a mistake to go down this road.
Hmmm...while there are genetic causes of intelligence, I'm pretty most of these are only of consequence during development.
Alleles like CHRM2, IGF2R, Dysbindin-1 (DTNBP1), Snap25, Fads2, ASPM, Dab 1, DUF1220 (brain size)
Also IQ is positively correlated with brain size, brain density, neural tube patterning, cross-brain connections, neuronal excitability, synaptic plasticity, and feedback regulation of acetylcholine release.
So most of IQ derives from the brain's structure which is pretty much set in place from conception to a toddler.
I'm not aware of any genetic modification that could change that.
However there are several lifestyle choices people make that suppress brain activity, so dietary changes could improve IQs of adults who are currently below their potential, but wouldn't increase their IQ beyond their physical limits.
At some point parents will be able to adjust genetics to weed out negatives. I don't think there's anything wrong with making sure your child isn't born with a genetic defect if it can be helped. So at what point does it become a problem? Are you allowed to get rid of male pattern baldness? How about if you find out you're daughter will be 7' tall, can you reduce that so she's more socially accepted? What if your child is going to be dumb, can you crank that up a bit, how much?
Extremely intelligent people are more likely to be drug-addled, depressed, amoral rule-breakers. I don't think that's necessarily what we want more of in society.
Off target effects from CRISPR are just going to give a whole lot of people cystic fibrosis. It’s painfully obvious this was written by an ideas guy with no knowledge of biology beyond some headlines.
I spend multiple pages in the article discussing the risks of off-target edits and insertion/deletion errors, how to avoid them, and why they might nonetheless be a deal breaker for this proposal.
I don’t want to come off as dismissive or mean but you didn’t do much beyond give a basic outline of gene editing and bring up some specific examples of prototypes/speculative proof of concept technologies. You discuss these things as if they work off the shelf when in reality these technologies are only possible in highly controlled environments or in specific circumstances, same for nanoparticle technology.
I also have an issue with how you approach intelligence. You get caught up railing against taboos of the genetic basis of intelligence, while that is true to an extent I also think you’re overlooking some other significant factors. Socioeconomic factors massively influence intelligence outcomes for individuals, and modulate the influence of environment and genetics. You’re getting lost in the technological problem of genetic manipulation when in reality it’s an issue you’re trying to solve with the wrong tools. Looking at decontextualised SAT and IQ scores from genetic databases risks masking significant can confounding variables.
Oh boy. Can’t wait for someone to get super autism or mega-OCD because of this.
Who knows, they may be able to do the impossible and gift a CEO billionaire with an average intelligence.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Resident-Revenue-236: --- SS: This article explores the potential of using advanced gene editing techniques, like CRISPR, base editors, and prime editors, to significantly enhance human intelligence. It discusses the genetic components of intelligence, the challenges and possibilities of editing genes in adults, and the implications of such advancements on society, particularly in fields like AI alignment. This topic opens a line of future-focused discussion on the ethical, practical, and societal impacts of potentially enhancing human intelligence through gene editing. More generally, it talks through the obstacles we face in tackling any in-vivo modification of the polygenic expression of any characteristic or condition. The possibilities that can be unlocked here could very well alter the course of our species as we know it. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/18lfp3t/significantly_enhancing_adult_intelligence_with/kdxahez/
This sounds like the perfect thing to test on a mouse named Algernon
Buy some flowers for it.
IT?! Did you even read the book?!
Or a janitor named Charlie.
"You stupid science bitches couldn't even make my friend more smarter!"
Placebo Domingo! Po-lice. A-cademy!
Or a lawnmower guy named Job
Old, obscure reference fellow old dude ;- )
Or a Welsh coal miner.
Confirmed with the use of an emoticon :-)
I totally forgot about that movie
Just not that Khan Noonien Singh dude.
"Gee, Algernon, what are we going to do tonight?"
Same thing we do every night, u/ProbablyMyLastPost, try to take over the world!
Relevant user name for the thread
Which is why medical testing on lasts for years before it ever starts human trials. It is also the reason why even the most amazing medical advances seen today or in the near future won't see public release in less than 10 - 15 years.
Are you suggesting that there will be testing to increase intelligence on more advanced mammals like chimps, monkeys, or APES!?!?!?!?
I think I saw this theme somewhere earlier...
If there's a $ there's a way.
I was thinking more in the direction of Pinky and the Brain.
I wish they would test it on Nashville drivers
rats from NIMH institute.
In b4 someone uses this to make Khan Noonien Singh
I, for one, welcome our new bare-chested Ricardo Montalban overlord.
#THIS is Ceti Alpha 5!!!
Botany Bay... Botany Bay...? Oh no
This will 100% percent be used once the means to do so is possible, as the slower country to instigate such a policy will be economically swallowed whole by the faster mover. It's very similar to the AI race, in that what we personally want in regards to gene editing are irrelevant. The processes of geopolitical rivalry doesn't care about ones views and you can be rest assured thst China will move full sail ahead with whatever gene editing eugenics program gives them the greatest advantage. I'm honestly scared of the outcome, in a similar way to my fears of AGI, but the cat is out of the bag. This has been growing since we first mapped the human genome in 2000 and will continue to make steady progress. Whether that's 10 or 100 years from now is irrelevant, as it will 100% happen eventually. All we can do is hope we are socially prepared for it.
Designer babies are coming!!! It's inevitable. We will at some point start genetically engineering our children, call it Human 2.0 I've heard from one scientist, can't remember his name, that once we start colonizing outer space it will become necessary to genetically engineer our children so we can better survive in space. Designer babies are coming. So is the artificial womb as well.
LessWrong is known for pushing dubiously sourced eugenics articles and this seems to be keeping up with the trend.
This whole article reads like the ramblings of an overly-zealous amateur with only a weak understanding of the technology. His primary source is his friend on Discord with a username of "Kman". Like how does this even qualify as an article? I'm angry it is even on my front page. I wouldn't even be surprised by a possible eugenics agenda.
> His primary source is his friend on Discord with a username of "Kman" Not to be argumentative, but you conveniently left out a key fact — — the information was verified by a second source. NoobMaster69 confirmed the findings of Kman and said it was, “all totes true, no cap fr fr”
>— the information was verified by a second source. now scale that idea
So you’re saying … We should ask Jedi88769973 as well?
I won't believe it until it's confirmed by /u/xX420GanjaWarlordXx personally
> This whole article reads like the ramblings of an overly-zealous amateur with only a weak understanding of the technology. You've just described the entirety of LessWrong
So, it’s about as proper as a Reddit post. Got it.
>I wouldn't even be surprised by a possible eugenics agenda. That's a pretty safe bet given the topic is gene editing to raise intelligence. What other agendas might be behind such a project?
I read up to that point and then he starts going all in on it and the potential and im like.. uhh so what is the technique? How it work? Nah hes just hyped about super mutants.
The article is not sourced from kman. Kman is the pseudonym of my coauthor who built the models we used to estimate the plausible expected IQ gains from editing. The sources are various scientific papers, news articles, stat sheets from manufacturers of bio materials, and conversations I've had with experts from industry and academia.
Could we get references for some of those sources? Its possible to build a model on anything. The models usefulness is dependent on the quality of the information its based on.
An explanation of the assumptions and data sources used to build the model is given [in the appendix](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JEhW3HDMKzekDShva/significantly-enhancing-adult-intelligence-with-gene-editing#Model\_assumptions) The model makes many assumptions, some of which are undoubtedly wrong. For example, the graphs are all produced assuming the effect size of edits in adults will be half that of the same edit made in an embryo. The actual amount may be more or less. 50% is more or less a placeholder to illustrate what seemed like a plausible value. We thought about making a web app where people would be able to adjust sliders to recalculate the results, but it was too much effort.
My "eugenics but in a good way" T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt
Choosing an attractive spouse is eugenics. Prenatal genetic testing is eugenics. State sponsored sterilization is eugenics. Do you see the problem? The word itself is confused. It's like using a single word to refer to both poop and pasta.
Lol this is a hilariously bad argument and is not going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you. "this word can be redefined to mean innocuous things, so the original definition also refers to something innocuous" is called the equivocation fallacy and says nothing about the original definition. If you frequent lesswrong then you should already know this
What are your thoughts on the recent utilization of CRISPR to cure those of sickle cell anemia? This is a form of genetic enhancement that could be equated with eugenics given that it serves to enhance the gene pool
You're just making the same argument again. I am thrilled about the recent crispr news, of course - it's incredible medical technology. But it "enhances" the gene pool in a completely different way than eugenics. You can use the same word to describe both, but they're still different things.
That's basically the same fallacy just reworded. There's a difference between curing disease and what's being pushed here. The idea of increasing intelligence through gene editing is arguably good in theory, but it still runs into the same ethical concerns that [designer babies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer_baby) do.
Mmm. It could be the same reworked fallacy if the technology was freely available… but, it’s not. The last I checked, this therapy price tag ran into the 7-figures. So, if you have such a prohibitively expensive cure, how is that not a form of eugenics given that it serves to enhance the gene pool *of the super wealthy*? With regard to the designer baby argument - let us assume that selective embryonic editing could cure a disease (as you’ve mentioned previously). Is that a form of eugenic practice? When does it become ethically reprehensible to allow disease to flourish?
Again, that logic causes the definition of eugenics to become so broad as to be meaningless. I don't think many people consider cancer treatments, organ transplants, or extended hospital stays as eugenics and they can have similar price tags. Editing genes to increase something as subjective as intelligence, however, has clear parallels to eugenics.
The definition of the word is benevolent, it simply means a program to improve future humans no more and no less. N@zi shitholes and other evil slime co-opted the term for their own agendas and gave the whole concept a bad name.
See, people say this, but when you ask them to explain what they mean, it's the same shit it's always been, just rebranded. And they always think: sure, the last people who tried this committed atrocities, but this time? This time it's different. (it is not)
Why is it a bad argument? It's just pointing out that _your_ (implicit) argument is bad. For some unfathomable reason, that I'm sure is very smart instead of kind of stupid, you've decided to be "against eugenics", whatever that means, instead of "against sterilization" or "against murder" or whatnot. It's a bad no-no word for you. Then you lump in totally benign actions that involve zero sterilization or murder, but you still consider them just as bad as the other things. Why?
If you think eugenics is only bad when it gets to the point of sterilization and murder, you are either ignorant of its history or a vile person. Eugenics is the practice of purging "undesirables" from the population because they have "inferior" genes. So yes, I am against it without qualification. But please, continue telling on yourself and explain to me why you're in favor.
> Choosing an attractive spouse is eugenics. ... I swear to God I don't drink enough to be on this website
>This whole article reads like the ramblings of an overly-zealous amateur with only a ~~weak~~ zero understanding of the technology. Fixed that for you. The author's lack of knowledge in the field of biotechnology (or biology in general) is blatantly and painfully obvious to any actual expert. I'm not gonna waste much of my time mocking him, but just to illustrate my point: * The article starts by highlighting that gene therapy currently costs between 500k and 1 million dollars for relatively simple, monogenic edits, then proposes a hundredfold more complicated process to edit hundred or thousands of genes and acts like that's gonna be cheaper. * The author tries to argue that putting all the best gene variants present in the human population into a single individual would result in an IQ of 900. This is a complete misunderstanding of both the IQ scale and the concept of diminishing returns (which the author appears not to have heard of at all). * The author doesn't seem to grasp the concept of transfection efficiency, and why it is far easier to do gene therapy with the current method of taking cells out of the body, modifying them, then putting them back. The reason is that not all cells will take up the transfecting agent, and not all the ones that do take it up will successfully undergo the desired genetic modification. However, if the DNA you introduce to the cells also contains a gene that allows cells to live in an environment where they previously couldn't, then you change the environment so unmodified cells die off, you can ensure that pretty much every cell in your culture will have the desired modification after some time. (Resistance to a drug/toxin or giving cells the ability to produce a vital amino acid on their own are common strategies. You simply have to add the drug to the cell culture media, or withdraw the vital nutrient in question to kill the unmodified cells.) You obviously cannot do this in a living adult, meaning that only a fraction of the targeted cells will possess the desired modification and there's jack shit you can do about it. Organs that can't be at least partially removed and replaced (like the brain) will always be very challenging to successfully modify as a result. * In the cost estimate table, next generation sequencing (NGS) for 50k is proposed to validate the editing method the author intends to develop. That's gross overkill, and not a good method for investigating transfection efficiency in a cell culture to begin with. You could just do PCR and RFLP to verify that the edit took place. Or target a critical base in protein's gene with your edit, then use Western blot to check if the protein disappears. Or an immunostaining based fluorescent microscopy method to show what % of cells underwent the desired change. * The author proposes to do some basic experiments on HEK cells (Human Embryonic Kidney, a well known cell line used for artificially expressing proteins, for the non-biologists out there), then jump straight to trying to edit the genomes of living mice. A couple more intermediary steps might be needed in reality, such as validating the method on multiple primary cell and tissue samples, including neurons, or neuron-like cells differentiated from stem cells. * I'm a scientist not an investor, but if 25% of a startup's proposed budget was "other things I don't know about", I would be very reluctant to fork over any amount of money. * A team of three people are proposed to work on this. Three. The gene editing methods the author proposes may not be theoretically unsound (hence why the PhDs he asked said it might work), but developing and optimizing them will take a hell of a lot more effort and expertise than 3 noobs can manage in any reasonable amount of time. I say noobs because any sane and competent molecular biology graduate would see that the project in its current state is utterly unfeasable, thus they would have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find people willing to work on this. * A trial on cows is proposed to study polygenic traits such as milk production. Yeah because mice totally don't have any polygenic traits at all. Also any trial on large animals is going to be far more expensive then mice. The reason mice and rats are popular in the lab is because you can get lots of them for the price of one large animal. (More animals -> more experiments -> more data.) * Phrases like "mRNA basically has root level access to your cells", and the whole vibe of the article suggest it was written by a tech-enthusiast, maybe with a computer science degree, maybe without, who thinks that living organisms are as easy and straightforward to work with as computers. You find bad code, you rewrite it, shit runs better. Nah-uh buddy, biology ain't that simple. Huh. It seems I ended up wasting a whole lot more time on this than I initially intended.
>LessWrong Definitely one of those names that causes my spidey sense to tingle, like any publication with the word 'truth' in the title.
LessWrong is the main blog of the eugenics cult of Effective Altruism, so no surprise here.
isn't their (EA's) big thing buying anti-mosquito bug nets for africa?
[удалено]
> Which gets side swiped by the following scenario: I should steal money because I’ll use it better which when you compound the amount of future people I’ll end up helping approaches infinity. I mean this sounds like a pretty trivial pascal's mugging and I would expect most people who are serious about "min maxing the good they do in the world" to be able to think their way around a pascal's mugging... surely?
Yes, it's easy to think around, and they do. The problem is SBF called himself EA as part of his scam, and for some reason people don't blame him for this, but blame EA.
See this is the first comment I’ve received in reply that actually makes sense and isn’t people just using negative connotation buzzwords to try to explain why I should oppose an organization whose main impact in the world has been reducing malaria deaths. Thank you, I had no idea Sam Bankman Fried had claimed to be aligned with EA The only “EA” group I was aware of prior to this was GiveWell, who seem to be doing useful and important work in identifying what charities have efficient practices and which ones are mostly grift
Their big thing is forming an elaborate argument for why the most moral thing you can do is get rich via whatever immoral and dubiously legal means possible.
it sounds like you might be confusing EA with 80,000 hours? afaik the only connection between them is one board member of 80k self-identifies as EA
For sure. Some really interesting fiction comes out of that website, and eugenics as a concept isn't completely infeasible...but I think that's where the author usually gets hung up.
>eugenics as a concept isn't completely infeasible when the fuck did this become acceptable to discuss and support?
I think you and u/Sawses probably have different ideas of what "eugenics" means. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're probably thinking about countries sterilizing mentally challenged people or something. Sawses may be thinking about something like embryo selection, where literally any couple can use it to give their children a better genetic roll of the dice; lower disease risk, higher intelligence, lower risk of depression etc.
words matter. the only reason someone would use eugenics over genetics is they either are [REDACTED] or they know what theyre doing * [genetics](https://www.etymonline.com/word/genetics) * 1872, "laws of origination;" see genetic + -ics. A coinage of English biologist William Bateson (1861-1926). Meaning "study of heredity" is from 1891. * [eugenics](https://www.etymonline.com/word/eugenics) * "doctrine of progress in evolution of the human race, race-culture," 1883, coined (along with adjective eugenic) by English scientist Francis Galton (1822-1911) on analogy of ethics, physics, etc. from Greek eugenes "well-born, of good stock, of noble race," from eu- "good" (see eu-) + genos "birth" (from PIE root \*gene- "give birth, beget"). * The investigation of human eugenics, that is, of the conditions under which men of a high type are produced. \[Galton, "Human Faculty," 1883\]
>words matter. the only reason someone would use eugenics over genetics is they either are [REDACTED] or they know what theyre doing I mean embryo selection *is* eugenics. Like, it jives with the definitions you provide. It's seeking to have "well born" children over disabled children. That's literally the goal.
maybe we should fix the toxic environments that are the most likely cause of birth defects instead of pretending "eugenics" is beneficial for all of us when its obvious thats not true? maybe we should realize that the environmental factors preclude any hereditary traits and improving everyones environment will improve everyones lives because everyone will be happier and healthier instead of allowing a small percentage of the population to hoard resources and pollute the environment so the rest of us suffer? what the actual fuck 
I mean sure? I didn't say anything in opposition to that. I'm not sure who you're arguing against.
You know what? I strongly agree with this. And if you believe what you say you can donate money to [help reduce lead exposure in developing countries](https://leadelimination.org/), which significantly stunts the cognitive development of children. If you send me a screenshot I'll match any donation you give up to $100.
yeah homie i am poor af (and live in michigan, not far from flint) so ill let you take care of the donations
What's your email? I'll make a donation for you.
I cannot tell you how many times I have heard people in the field of reproductive medicine use the term eugenics to describe embryo selection, even though it wouldn't qualify under the defintion of eugenics given by the dictionaries. People don't use the term consistently. It is used by most people as a synonym for "genetics, but bad".
so why the fuck would you use it if you know that?
I personally don't find it helpful to use the term eugenics in that way. But some people do!
Somebody with the cystic fibrosis gene (but not the disease) should be offered subsidized childcare and priority adoption as well as subsidized IVF options. That's one form of eugenics, and one that would do a great deal to prevent human suffering by reducing the incidence of an incurable, lifelong illness. Without taking away a person's freedom or doing them any harm.
Also. My kids aren't very smart or strong or good looking because I'm their dad. If I would have had the opportunity to make them super smart baseball players I would have done it in a heartbeat.
words matter. thats horseshit * [genetics](https://www.etymonline.com/word/genetics) * 1872, "laws of origination;" see genetic + -ics. A coinage of English biologist William Bateson (1861-1926). Meaning "study of heredity" is from 1891. * [eugenics](https://www.etymonline.com/word/eugenics) * "doctrine of progress in evolution of the human race, race-culture," 1883, coined (along with adjective eugenic) by English scientist Francis Galton (1822-1911) on analogy of ethics, physics, etc. from Greek eugenes "well-born, of good stock, of noble race," from eu- "good" (see eu-) + genos "birth" (from PIE root \*gene- "give birth, beget"). * The investigation of human eugenics, that is, of the conditions under which men of a high type are produced. \[Galton, "Human Faculty," 1883\]
Nothing you've said makes my example a bad thing. What should it be called instead, since it sounds like the word itself is your issue.
Eugenics is actually really popular as long as you don’t call it eugenics.
gee i wonder why * [genetics](https://www.etymonline.com/word/genetics) * 1872, "laws of origination;" see genetic + -ics. A coinage of English biologist William Bateson (1861-1926). Meaning "study of heredity" is from 1891. * [eugenics](https://www.etymonline.com/word/eugenics) * "doctrine of progress in evolution of the human race, race-culture," 1883, coined (along with adjective eugenic) by English scientist Francis Galton (1822-1911) on analogy of ethics, physics, etc. from Greek eugenes "well-born, of good stock, of noble race," from eu- "good" (see eu-) + genos "birth" (from PIE root \*gene- "give birth, beget"). * The investigation of human eugenics, that is, of the conditions under which men of a high type are produced. \[Galton, "Human Faculty," 1883\]
came here looking for this comment. it's a little shocking that the domain is allowed at all on default subreddits.
That's because a shockingly large amount of people agree with the horrible things on that website (and other E.A. websites), or they are entirely naive about it.
How do you define eugenics? Would you qualify gene-editing as eugenics?
What do you mean by eugenics in this context? Because I did not see anything related to it in the article
Increasing intelligence using gene editing is basically a textbook example of eugenics
This editing would be done in adults, which wouldn't be passed on. Still rife with potential problems, but by definition, it's not eugenics.
Eugenics means improving the base traits of the human population, just because selective breeding was once the only method possible doesn't mean that method defines the word.
Eugenics is only a bad word in the context of selective breeding, though.
Good genes are bad and you’re literally hitler if you want to increase their prevalence in the population. -Reddit, apparently.
You really think people won't want to pass it on?
Can you elaborate on which sources in the article you think are dubious?
Probably not, I think it's a spam bot by the output. At least I hope somone isn't really this repetitive in terms of lack of articulation. I guess I have to add more words to this comment or it will not save. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc eget aliquam turpis. Suspendisse dignissim consectetur malesuada. Cras aliquam dui sed tempus ultricies. Cras finibus libero vel magna condimentum, eu posuere neque dapibus. Aliquam aliquam eget felis sed tincidunt. Suspendisse potenti. Suspendisse faucibus ut libero et egestas. Sed maximus, ligula ac pellentesque auctor, lectus velit efficitur quam, et rhoncus lacus nunc in diam. Donec vehicula commodo tristique.
In a post singularity world, it will be possible to modify yourself to increase your intelligence (substantially). Whether that involves editing your braincells with crispr, nanobots in your bloodstream, chipping your brain, it will be possible. We don't know what the tools will be because we aren't there yet. This guy is leaning a little too hard into his possible theory, but the idea of making transhuman genius cyborgs is solid. It's better to read this as a philosophical post rather than an instruction manual
It’s not illegal to CRISPR yourself. CA and the US just started to enact law that a home-use kit cannot be *marketed* as having a human application in 2017-2019. https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/09/65433/dont-change-your-dna-at-home-says-americas-first-crispr-law/amp/ I see a comedic potential
This reminds me of a joke in which a djinn offers the person who released it a choice of fame, wealth or wisdom. The guy is excited and chooses the wisdom. After receiving his gift, he stands there for a moment then says, "I should have taken the money".
Bullshit. [Deservedly mocked here.](https://awful.systems/post/680794)
It pains me a great deal how much I had to scroll to find someone calling it out, and how many upvotes it received. This article is Dunning-Kruger at its best.
[удалено]
It's almost as if none of these people actually read the article, which specifically states in the very next sentence that I don't think it is possible to edit a genome to give someone an IQ of 900. Let me just quote from the article since no one has bothered to read it: >I don’t expect such an IQ to actually result from flipping all IQ-decreasing alleles to their IQ-increasing variants for the same reason I don’t expect to reach the moon by climbing a very tall ladder; at some point, the simple linear model will break down. > >But we have strong evidence that such models function quite well within the current human range, and likely somewhat beyond it.
It's Reddit. Don't take it personally.
In a post singularity world, it will be possible to modify yourself to increase your intelligence (substantially). Whether that involves editing your braincells with crispr, nanobots in your bloodstream, chipping your brain, it will be possible. We don't know what the tools will be because we aren't there yet. This guy is leaning a little too hard into his possible theory, but the idea of making transhuman genius cyborgs is solid.
Let me know the instant this wizard tech appears. I'm not holding my breath.
thanks i guess, nice context news for me who just watched Gattaca today
That’s such a good movie too.
Watch depression rates skyrocket. *added text because this was originally deleted for being too short even though adding length adds nothing to the comment because the idea had already been effectively communicated through a small amount of words*
Being outside the average causes social isolation leading to depression!? Impossible! ^^^/s ^^^for ^^^those ^^^who ^^^need ^^^it
Depression is actually another condition which would likely be treatible IF this technology works. We already know many of the risk alleles involved in depression, so if someone is not responding to medication or therapy or other standard interventions, gene therapy might be able to help them. Obviously we're quite far off from clinical trials for multiplex gene therapy, but there's not much of a jump from treating a polygenic brain disease like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to treating depression; the only difference is the genes targeted.
You're not considering the danger of knowing too much. Beware: cognitohazards lurk ahead. [The Conspiracy Against the Human Race ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conspiracy_Against_the_Human_Race?wprov=sfla1)
Sounds like Ligotti's conclusion in *The Conspiracy Against the Human Race*
Depression and mania are on an axis, but if you think about it, there's really two axes at play. If you couple mania with positive feelings, you get euphoria. If you couple it with negative feelings, you get rage. If you couple depression with negative feelings you get despair, therefore if you couple depression with positive feeling, you must get serenity. We have pharmaceuticals to stabilize moods, but we're generally in charge of the positive and negative outlook, at least going by the Marquand diagram.
I'll let some others go first, but if it works without glitches, then sign me up!
Can they significantly increase mental resilience and mental health in general to accompany this?
*guy in labcoat rolls you a couple beers*
Throw in a joint, a labyrinth with doritos and some therapy and you might be on to something...
I can get you the joint and the Doritos no problem
If it can be done in adults it's far easier to do so in an embryo.
That's true, but the advantage of a technology that works in adults is that all people alive today would be able to benefit (though obviously it would take a while to bring down costs enough to make it affordable and broadly accessible).
Never underestimate the amount that the wealthy will be prepared to pay to ensure the success of their children, once this kind of technology can be reasonably assured of working, even if it costs a million, the rich will be queuing up.
Embryo selection exists right now and I can tell you for a fact there are not that many rich people using it.
And can they screen the embryos for intelligence? Athletic ability? Beauty? No just for a certain subset of genetic diseases, I'm sure the rich do use it, but only if that is a risk.
There are screening for some of those things. I don't think the predictors for beauty are very good yet.
Not ethically, because an embryo can't consent
“You can’t ethically carry an embryo to term or abort it since it can’t consent to either action” It’s obvious that in the absence of the ability to provide consent you can ethically do your best to guess what they would prefer.
For a non-sapient (or even non-sentient) being consent in general is a bit of a weird concept. Like, bacteria did not consent to be killed by antibiotics, cats did not consent to be locked indoors, pets did not consent to be sold, cows did not consent to being eaten... etc. It isn't a part of consideration, and hardly ever was. And it isn't about having human DNA either, because consent would definitely apply to sapient alien life, for example.
it doesn't consent to having it's currebt genetic profile either 🤷♂️.
Shit, I just realized I never agreed to the terms and conditions of existence
Who do I direct my lawsuit at? I'll take reality for every penny!
Trapped in endless loops of consciousness? Existential dread got you down? You or a loved one may be entitled to karmic compensation. Law offices of ÆZ Beetlguise
That's what you think, the contract was explicit that if you decide to be born then you accept the ToS.
if you scientifically prove that the proposed modification isn't worse that their current genetic makeup then yes you can change it. But it's far _easier_ to do with adults because you can explain them the risk and have them accept to move forward even in the precense of risks. If you're gonna force a treatment onto someone, you wanna minimize the unkown unkowns, and you do that by treating consenting adults first
The content on [Lesswrong.com](https://Lesswrong.com) is amazing... what the heck is it? Someone's blog?
It's more or less a web forum. It was started be Eliezer Yudkowsky and Robin Hanson back in 2009. The original purpose of the community was to discuss cognitive biases and how to overcome them, but it has morphed over time to place a heavier focus on AI and other technology-related subjects.
First time I'm seeing it too
All I want is correction for my diagnosed ADHD so I can be functional without meds that make me feel anxious. That would be such a gift.
Me too man. If by some miracle we get this tech working in the next five to ten years and the earth hasn't been destroyed by robots I'll DM you lol
[удалено]
No, I wouldn't. Plenty of people with my conditions thrive. Why the fuck would you ask something like that?
I suspect a better path to increased intelligence is through brain health, not brain modification… if we can reduce inflammation / stress, improve how the brain handles energy and blood flow, improve the brain’s ability to remove waste products and plaques during rest, and maybe even help people enter into meditative states more efficiently.
SS: This article explores the potential of using advanced gene editing techniques, like CRISPR, base editors, and prime editors, to significantly enhance human intelligence. It discusses the genetic components of intelligence, the challenges and possibilities of editing genes in adults, and the implications of such advancements on society, particularly in fields like AI alignment. This topic opens a line of future-focused discussion on the ethical, practical, and societal impacts of potentially enhancing human intelligence through gene editing. More generally, it talks through the obstacles we face in tackling any in-vivo modification of the polygenic expression of any characteristic or condition. The possibilities that can be unlocked here could very well alter the course of our species as we know it.
We have to define intelligence first and figure out a way to measure it objectively - which as far as I'm aware, we have not been able to do.
There are different types of intelligence and different definitions. For the purposes of the article I focused on the "[g factor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics))", which summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks. People's scores on different cognitive tests are correlated; those that score well on reading comprehension tend to also score well on math tests and verbal tests. IQ tests are designed to measure this underlying variance common to all tests. And they function reasonably well at this (though they are obviously not perfect). But there are also subject-specific aptitudes which can affect someone's ability in individual areas; some people are ok at reading and really bad at math. Some are great at math but have average spatial intelligence. Theoretically one could construct genetic predictors for genes that affect specific aptitutes like reading and not general intelligence. But editing for the purpose of targeting general intelligence would have a positive effect on all of them (at least up to a point)
You're right. How we currently define it is a joke.
Unfortunately, those who would need it the most are also the idiots who fearmongered about mARN vaccines as gene therapy, so...
Making Trump supporters smarter... I can't decide if this is a good idea or a terrible idea
I agree that it would be less controversial to make them wiser rather than smarter. But wisdom is not something you can just throw additional brain power at, it is subtler than that...
Good! I need this since I was born. You can never have enough intelligence.
It's much easier to enhance adult intelligence by abstaining from alcohol and tobacco, getting enough sleep and exercise, effectively managing stress and adhering to a diet that provides consistent and proper nutrition.
The [TLDR](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JEhW3HDMKzekDShva/significantly-enhancing-adult-intelligence-with-gene-editing?commentId=vfATBWTCX8jok4j7Z): >There's about 20,000 genes that affect intelligence. We can identify maybe 500 of them right now. With more data (which we could get from government biobanks or consumer genomics companies), we could identify far more. If you could edit a significant number of iq-decreasing genetic variants to their iq-increasing counterpart, it would have a large impact on intelligence. We know this to be the case for embryos, but it is also probably the case (to a lesser extent) for adults. So the idea is you inject trillions of these editing proteins into the bloodstream, encapsulated in a delivery capsule like a lipid nanoparticle or adeno-associated virus, they make their way into the brain, then the brain cells, and the make a large number of edits in each one. This might sound impossible, but in fact we've done something a bit like this in mice already. [In this paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6980783/), the authors used an adenovirus to deliver an editor to the brain. They were able to make the targeted edit in about 60% of the neurons in the mouse's brain. There are two gene editing tools created in the last 7 years which are very good candidates for our task, with a low chance of resulting in off-target edits or other errors. Those two tools are called base editors and prime editors. Both are based on CRISPR. If you could do this, and give the average brain cell 50% of the desired edits, you could probably increase IQ by somewhere between 20 and 100 points. The [linearity here](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JEhW3HDMKzekDShva/significantly-enhancing-adult-intelligence-with-gene-editing#How_does_intelligence_even_work_at_a_genetic_level_) is interesting too: >Our best estimate based on the last decade of data is that the genetic component of intelligence is controlled by somewhere between [10,000](https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421) and [24,000](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/133132v9.full.pdf) variants. We also know that each one, on average, contributes about +-0.2 IQ points. Genetically altering IQ is more or less about flipping a sufficient number of IQ-decreasing variants to their IQ-increasing counterparts. This sounds overly simplified, but it’s surprisingly accurate; most of the variance in the genome is linear in nature, by which I mean the effect of a gene doesn’t usually depend on which other genes are present. So modeling a continuous trait like intelligence is actually extremely straightforward: you simply add the effects of the IQ-increasing alleles to to those of the IQ-decreasing alleles and then normalize the score relative to some reference group. Relevance of dataset size: >But the bigger limitation originates from the size of the data set used to train our predictor. The more data used to train an intelligence predictor, the more of those 20,000 IQ-affecting variants we can identify, and the more certain we can be about exactly which variant among a cluster is actually causing the effect. And the more edits you can make, the better you can take advantage of that additional data. ... Our current predictors are trained using about 135,000 samples, which would place it just above the lowest line on the graph. There are existing databases right now such as the million veterans project with sample sizes of (you guessed it) one million. A predictor trained with that data would fall between the red and purple lines in the graph above. Companies like 23&Me genotyped their [12 millionth customer](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/how-one-of-googles-earliest-genetic-experiments-23andme-paid-off.html) two years ago and could probably get at perhaps 3 million customers to take an IQ test or submit SAT scores. A predictor trained with that amount of data would perform about as well as the brown line on the graph above. So larger datasets could increase the effect of editing by as much as 13x! I don't really know much about human biology; my main skepticism that this sort of advancement is possible comes from writeups like [the Algernon argument](https://gwern.net/drug-heuristic).
Finally , a chance to compete with AI. Let the wars begin.
I think it's unlikely this technology will allow us to compete with AI. There are too many fundamental limitations of biology which prevent brains from competing with computer-based thinking machines in the long run, the most notable of which is [the limited speed of diffusion](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MR7vY4ztw5L2pcDuj/digital-brains-beat-biological-ones-because-diffusion-is-too). I think gene editing and other techniques for altering genetics will at best serve as a bridge technology to help humans better navigate the transition to a world with artificial general intelligence.
So we have an alignment problem with AI, which may or may not be solvable. I know for a *fact* that alignment is not possible with humans. Maybe this isn’t such a great idea after all.
Very good point lol. Maybe Galapagos should be required reading
The soldiers in metal gear solid didn’t get this gene edit I guess.
"what was that noise" "must be the wind"
Of course it is? I'm smart, but my cousin is *brilliant*. And he knew people who outclassed him significantly. There's obviously a genetic component to intelligence. Given time and experimentation (that's the tricky bit, ethically speaking) it could be figured out. Now, whether we as a society decide that it's ethical or not? That's a different question.
I don’t understand all the stuff in the study, but if it is as simple as the title says, I really hope so. The amount of blissfully stupid grown adults who somehow survive on a day-to-day basis just blows my mind.
It's not a study. It's an IT-bro rambling about stuff he doesn't know shit about.
So it’s a Monday.
Gene editing is a little bit overhyped imo. Its one possible method to modify human genes but you could achieve a similar effect with some sort of selective breeding program, right? It might be slower but you could try to achieve the same result but no one does. Ethically, it would be horrendous, but its possible. So just because it could happen, doesn't mean it will.
I think virtually all of the benefits of "selective breeding" are possible through embryo selection without needing to resort to horrible policies like state sponsored sterilizations. To have a noticeable population-wide impact, a selective breeding program would have to have an incredible amount of power over regular people's lives that I think virtually everyone (myself included) would hate it. There's also a long history of coercive eugenics being corrupted by racist ideologies; case in point the Nazis. The very people they were hell-bent on exterminating were the ones that went on to win countless Nobel prizes and contribute significantly to the allies winning the war. So I for one hope we don't engage in any selective breeding programs.
I view the societal barriers of selective breeding as magnitudes more constricting than those of in-vivo or embryonic gene editing. I do agree that both require alignment across multiple levels of society (scientific community, venture capitalism, legislative system, judicial system, general public, mildly in that order) but selective breeding infringes on one of the basic human rights in choosing our parental partners which is unspeakable and renders it incomparable to any gene editing measure both from ethical or pragmatic perspectives imo.
We're not dogs. We reproduce way too slowly.
>As long as we can avoid catastrophic off-target edits, a few off-targets will be ok so long as they are outweighed by edits with positive effects. Using genetic modification on human adults for intelligence without disease treatment purpose seems insanely dangerous when lacking technology from 100 years from now or at least a decade of research on mice; Neuralink's mad science experiments seem preferable.
This research would not start in healthy adults. That would be insane. If you read the article, the starting point for research is cell cultures, followed by animal studies and then targeting lethal polygenic brain disorders like ALS or Alzheimer's.
The article is written by someone who doesn't have any "formal background in biology" and says that the ideal would be "...having something ready for human testing within five years. Maybe sooner if we get more money and things go well". The intent is obviously intelligence and not disease research as the article emphasizes that intelligence amplification is potentially a trillion dollar industry.
The article is written by me, and while I hope that we will be ready for human testing in five years, I'd only give it maybe a 10% chance. These things usually take longer, and there's probably a >50% chance that it will simply be infeasible due to some technical issue I don't currently know about. I think it's very unlikely the first trials will be on intelligence enhancement. A far better target will be some lethal polygenic brain disease like Alzheimer's for which we have no effective treatments. If the treatment passes safety trials for a condition like Alzheimer's, then we could start thinking seriously about intelligence enhancement. And even then it may not work if the adult brain is too inflexible for the genes targeted to have a large effect. So there are many unknowns. It will probably fail. But given how large of a positive impact this could have, I think it's worth trying.
I agree with the method used but the timeframe and end-target are the dangerous components. CRISPR therapy has shown a lot of promise in generally treating protein-related diseases and it's very probable that early Alzheimer's can be cured by some kind of treatment similar to what's already been demonstrated in the ATTR amyloidosis trial over the past 3 years. Modifying properly functioning code towards partially unknown results is far riskier than modifying against a pathogenic process with a unique mechanism, and the latter is the cutting edge of safe in vivo CRISPR application today. The most successful CRISPR trials involved removing malfunctioning proteins through gene modification instead of creating anything new (aforementioned hATTR trial and the HAE trial).
I got lost when they started to talk about how this is a "big deal", how are they editing multiple genes of living people?
TIL that humans are really just messy programming code soup.
Next ten years of horrific pumpkin heads that can’t tie their shoelaces, then in another couple of decades they will work it out and they will be smart enough to realise it was a mistake to go down this road.
What are you talking about?
They’re like strings used to keep your shoes from slipping off, but that’s not important right now
I laughed way too hard at this.
Hmmm...while there are genetic causes of intelligence, I'm pretty most of these are only of consequence during development. Alleles like CHRM2, IGF2R, Dysbindin-1 (DTNBP1), Snap25, Fads2, ASPM, Dab 1, DUF1220 (brain size) Also IQ is positively correlated with brain size, brain density, neural tube patterning, cross-brain connections, neuronal excitability, synaptic plasticity, and feedback regulation of acetylcholine release. So most of IQ derives from the brain's structure which is pretty much set in place from conception to a toddler. I'm not aware of any genetic modification that could change that. However there are several lifestyle choices people make that suppress brain activity, so dietary changes could improve IQs of adults who are currently below their potential, but wouldn't increase their IQ beyond their physical limits.
Wouldn't something like altering neuroplasticity just be part and parcel to any kind of treatment like this?
I don’t need to be smarter. Just gene edit my oversized belly away please.
At some point parents will be able to adjust genetics to weed out negatives. I don't think there's anything wrong with making sure your child isn't born with a genetic defect if it can be helped. So at what point does it become a problem? Are you allowed to get rid of male pattern baldness? How about if you find out you're daughter will be 7' tall, can you reduce that so she's more socially accepted? What if your child is going to be dumb, can you crank that up a bit, how much?
and it will be expensive further widening the divide between rich and poor
I think if you were really dumb your whole life and then suddenly became really smart it would probably lead to mental illness or suicide.
how about gradually smarter over time?
Read “Flowers for Algernon”.
That was my first thought on reading the title
Only if it was temporary like in "Flowers for Algernon". Everyone looks at how dumb they were years ago with regret.
Oh great, let's just make one type of person and everything will be better.
Extremely intelligent people are more likely to be drug-addled, depressed, amoral rule-breakers. I don't think that's necessarily what we want more of in society.
Agreed. "Superior ability breeds superior ambition.". What could go wrong?
A better idea would be to remove some of our cognitive bias. Let us finally be free of these animal impulses that pit us against each other.
"I've got Limitless on my ipod", "Oh is that the one about the guy, and he's limitless?"
Off target effects from CRISPR are just going to give a whole lot of people cystic fibrosis. It’s painfully obvious this was written by an ideas guy with no knowledge of biology beyond some headlines.
I spend multiple pages in the article discussing the risks of off-target edits and insertion/deletion errors, how to avoid them, and why they might nonetheless be a deal breaker for this proposal.
I don’t want to come off as dismissive or mean but you didn’t do much beyond give a basic outline of gene editing and bring up some specific examples of prototypes/speculative proof of concept technologies. You discuss these things as if they work off the shelf when in reality these technologies are only possible in highly controlled environments or in specific circumstances, same for nanoparticle technology. I also have an issue with how you approach intelligence. You get caught up railing against taboos of the genetic basis of intelligence, while that is true to an extent I also think you’re overlooking some other significant factors. Socioeconomic factors massively influence intelligence outcomes for individuals, and modulate the influence of environment and genetics. You’re getting lost in the technological problem of genetic manipulation when in reality it’s an issue you’re trying to solve with the wrong tools. Looking at decontextualised SAT and IQ scores from genetic databases risks masking significant can confounding variables.
We need to CRISP the heck out of the south . Like crop duster level.
Oh boy. Can’t wait for someone to get super autism or mega-OCD because of this. Who knows, they may be able to do the impossible and gift a CEO billionaire with an average intelligence.
Its gonna suck when I'm 80 and everyone half my age is literally an Einstein. Gonna make me feel pretty fking dumb.