Sentences (#86)


Fundamentally solve the “intelligence problem,” and all other problems become trivial.

‘Fundamentally solving the intelligence problem’ would be intense in a way I suspect no one has yet begun to understand. Once intelligence is fully off the leash, all previous problems look trivial, because intelligence is — beyond all comparison — the most dangerous thing out there.

Karlin’s discussion touches all the bases, including the idiocratic scenario:

Human genetic editing is banned by government edict around the world, to “protect human dignity” in the religious countries and “prevent inequality” in the religiously progressive ones. The 1% predictably flout these regulations at will, improving their progeny while keeping the rest of the human biomass down where they believe it belongs, but the elites do not have the demographic weight to compensate for plummeting average IQs as dysgenics decisively overtakes the Flynn Effect. …

January 12, 2017admin 28 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Sentences


28 Responses to this entry

  • Hanfei Says:

    You seem popular at Unz, admin


    Posted on January 12th, 2017 at 5:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    Idk it seems unlikely that they would attempt genetic editing for their own kids, they’re already well bred so it’s unlikely they need it. Nassim’s anti-GMO arguments seem definitive imho.


    tsk Reply:

    You are nuts.


    grey enlightenment Reply:

    of course they will do it. elites are more competitive and status-seeking than anyone else . they are the ones paying for private $10-40k a year kindergarten in Manhattan


    Seth Largo Reply:

    I feel like a definitive, data-driven portrait of the 1%, the Western “elite”, has yet to be written but would prove a valuable touchstone for many discussions around here. Who are these people who make high six figures and upward? How do they vote, where do they live, what do they spend their money on, and what do their lived preferences reveal? It seems like most answers to these questions are based on anecdote more than anything.


    Henk Reply:

    they’re already well bred

    Ask your genetic engineers to make inbreeding great again.


    SVErshov Reply:

    “they would attempt genetic editing for their own kids”

    if they do, then their kids will kill them and make it top priority task, intelligence is nasty thing, very very nasty. russians have dolphins babies program back in the days. those kids begun training from day one after birth and was able to swim underwater in age of few months for few minutes.

    once I saw amazing scene, big girl about 14 run screaming with real horror from her guts and behind was 4-5 year girls from dolphins with knife. all of them never smile and obviously were not humorouse much. they were very seriouse and condidered smiling as azz kissing.

    that is why I dont buy those Kettle Belly supermen character. intellegence is tottaly bad and destructive to anything it touch.

    be careful what you wish for.


    Posted on January 12th, 2017 at 6:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    The paradox is that to solve the intelligence problem we need .. intelligence. So there’s a meta-intelligence problem as well (that infinitely regresses). The most viable option for a bootstrap strategy is legalizing archaic techniques of ecstasy. If ayahuasca were made into a daily supplement (there’s no tolerance) we could have shitlord-shamans voyaging to Heaven (and Hell–let’s not pretend it’s going to be fun) on a daily basis and bringing back their boons to the tribe. Of course this begs the above-stated question, as we will need intelligence to get them legalized… It seems plausible we could exploit the loophole of shaming progs for banning religious practices of South American peoples. (evil smile)


    Wagner Reply:

    Ecstasy – from Ancient Greek ἔκστασις ‎(ékstasis), from ἐξίστημι ‎(exístēmi, “I displace”), from ἐκ ‎(ek, “OUT”) and ἵστημι ‎(hístēmi, “I stand”), i.e. to stand OUTSIDE. Entheogens = techniques of outsideness.

    I rest my case.


    Posted on January 12th, 2017 at 7:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Human genetic editing is banned by government edict around the world, to “protect human dignity” in the religious countries and “prevent inequality” in the religiously progressive ones.

    The same reasons these humanists give for opposing aristocracy, eugenics and nationalism.

    We have reached the final taboo.


    Posted on January 12th, 2017 at 7:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • pyrrhus Says:

    The elites are getting dumber too, as the steady decrease in SAT scores over the last 50 years demonstrates. Why? I will guess that it is related to Mouse Utopia….which Michael Woodley thinks is caused the accumulation of genetic errors in a non-Malthusian environment.


    Posted on January 12th, 2017 at 9:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    FLynn effect of environmental IQ increases is petering out across the world, especially in the high IQ nations responsible for most technological progress in the first place (Dutton, Van Der Linden, & Lynn, 2016). In the longterm “business as usual” scenario, this will result in an Idiocracy incapable of any further technological progress and at permanent risk of a Malthusian population crash should average IQ fall below the level necessary to sustain technological civilization.

    . The 1% predictably flout these regulations at will, improving their progeny while keeping the rest of the human biomass down where they believe it belongs, but the elites do not have the demographic weight to compensate for plummeting average IQs as dysgenics decisively overtakes the FLynn Effect.

    however, another possibility is that growing world population will mean more total smart people, which seems to be the case right now , as the best and brightest from all over the world flock to America’s most prestigious universities and companies.Russia, Europe, India, East and South Asia have billions of people and produce thousands, i not millions of geniuses each year by virtue of the Bell Curve.

    The financial burden of too many unproductive people is a bigger problem, imho, than there not being enough smart people


    colleen ryan c/o grace house Reply:

    Exactly why you begin with a high IQ ethno state. From only that type of state can you ruthlessly attack dysgenics and advance with the speed of the technology.


    tsk Reply:

    Exactly, and it’s not just IQ.

    East Asian countries had high IQ’s for a while, but couldn’t get far until recently, because other societal factors stopping them from ruthlessly attacking dysgenics. Political ones.

    And as we saw in Germany and the US, the thing stopping them from attacking dysgenics wasn’t the dumb people… it was an distinct subset of smart people in their elites, many of them ethnically distinct, and therefore hostile towards the idea of “shedding parasites”.

    The more you look, the more you realize that the NRx counter-signaling of ethnonationalists is largely vanity. Even if many are dumb, the ethnonationalists – whether they’re White or Chinese – are the best bets for eugenics and acceleration we have.


    pyrrhus Reply:

    For the reasons I have stated, there is no Flynn Effect in the US, and probably not in most G20 countries.


    Posted on January 13th, 2017 at 12:06 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter W. Says:

    It will be the progressives who will want to use gene editing to genetically castrate humanity. Progressives will figure out the source of everything they don’t like is Testosterone. You want to use gene editing to improve humanity, but be prepared also to push for a general ban on gene editing to protect your great grandsons’ gonads. Testosterone causes rape, violence, anger and general meanness, which makes it a likely target for extermination, yet it is the engine of civilization. General intelligence would render Testosterone obsolete, but for now T is practically the only thing driving competition, innovation, creativity and achievement. If our gonads are destroyed, humanity will be forever lost.


    colleen ryan c/o grace house Reply:

    Does Spock have testosterone? This whole question is going to come down to violence.Superior intelligence is simply superior violence, it likely will be dispassionate, it may be subtle, but it will be used to eliminate competition.
    And youre right humanity will be lost, maybe that was inevitable.But on some level its simply some elites deciding mankind is their plaything, they might just as easily put their brains to work figuring out how to solve humanities problem while remaining human. Theres a good chance and ironically they dont deny it, that we will regret not strangling them.We cant actually because the cats out of the bag,and so its a race to survive against china, thus its inevitable. But it wasnt the chinese that thought this up its always the creative whites, and anything we imagine we create pretty quickly I will bet it will be sooner than later.


    Posted on January 13th, 2017 at 3:28 am Reply | Quote
  • ArchonAlarion Says:

    Embryonic eugenics + cyborgization + business as usual… 99% probability.

    Singularity or apocalypse… 1% probability.


    Posted on January 13th, 2017 at 3:35 am Reply | Quote
  • konshtok Says:

    What about Jonathan Haidts idea that the reason for us having reason is not so much to solve problems as it is to convince others (and ourselves) to do as we want

    Becoming smarter doesn’t make you act smarter
    it just gives you better rationalizations for the stupid stuff you do


    colleen ryan c/o grace house Reply:

    I havnt read that but obviously our intelligence is hampered by our other instincts. In a way it could be said human intelligence only gave us an idea of what actual intelligence could be and we are setting about making it.
    we want to act on our instincts, we have learned to question our instincts by the situation


    Posted on January 13th, 2017 at 7:45 am Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    Progressives will force edit DNA to create equality. Take Soviet economic distortions and apply it to genetics. There may not be a need for a David Cronenberg in the future, or he will make documentaries. Or if they don’t create monsters,, they will do to all of human society what communism did to the economy. Look at the externalities of the one-child policy in China, now throw in exponential changes.


    Posted on January 13th, 2017 at 2:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • colleen ryan c/o grace house Says:

    You would think with the extraordinary and very recent leap in that discrete jewish group we will soon be able to pinpoint at least what drove that and duplicate it with crspr.
    If we can do it at all i would think we could do it at the extremities of that range. We ought to be able to produce 200s easily very soon.We could pay the low end to raise them, thus preventing them from breeding naturally while ramping up the next generation quickly.It would be hard to scream nazi when everyones doing it and the poor are being paid huge sums to raise geniuses.Will anyone really want to tell them they are eliminating themselves? And would they really be, would they care the poor are pragmatic; I would think the best practice would be to keep as much diversity otherwise as possible. Of course we really ought to get rid of the non whites first otherwise youre weaponizing the competition, Thats all we need is is niggers with 200 IQs.


    Posted on January 13th, 2017 at 8:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Rothblatt Says:

    >Fundamentally solve the “intelligence problem,” and all other problems become trivial.

    This is patently false. High IQ usually just serves to better rationalize one’s delusions, so on its own it is worse than useless, it is actively harmful.


    Seth Largo Reply:


    And there is never intelligence “on its own.” There is only intelligence + some telos, many of which, I grant you, are destructive of both intelligence and telos.


    Posted on January 13th, 2017 at 8:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    You know its hard to communicate between levels of intelligence. What if we developed AI and it told us how to solve everything but we couldn’t understand and wouldn’t trust advice we didn’t understand. Its likely what it has to offer will be incomprehensible. Its also likely if we did understand it we wouldnt like it because we would have moral qualms. What if it gave us the recipe for a bioweapon


    Posted on January 14th, 2017 at 4:21 am Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    Admin gives interview for 60 Minutes wearing a frog mask, verbally denies his subterranean connection with the alt right every minute.


    Posted on January 14th, 2017 at 4:32 am Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    While maintaining consciousness can not arise in machines i would point out some things that might help you that do sleep better.

    Before any singularity a machine with the human equivalent of a 40 50 60 70 80 90 ….IQ will be built. These machines will not be able to outsmart us yet and we will know if the spontaneous consciousness theory is true.

    While it may be true theoretically that states will eschew confined AI either be air gap or software morality etc because the inherent intelligence limitation of their machine would be at an disadvantage of another races unlimited machine.Its also true that no one would dare build a machine not constrained first.

    What we learn from early trials as above and others unconsidered will influence how we proceed. extrapolating without having this interim information is wildly guessing.

    If all the people working in this believe, as they seem to, that what they are working on is a device that will understand things that will be utterly opaque to humanity, and wipe humanity of the face of the universe in a nanosecond, but we must proceed because the Chinese are going to and we will be at an disadvantage. Well someone might figure out this is a really stupid idea to proceed that there is no advantage to proceed first to annihilation, and so no imperative to beat your competitor to annihilation.

    Its not clear yet there actually is an advantage to “ruling the world” with or without super intelligence. This motivation for both the Chinese and Cathedral is dubious, and its dubious that a machine would wish to rule the world for the same reasons. Its even likely early versions of AI may point out to humanity a new world order that eliminates conflict before they build a singularity.

    Even without the above,Its pretty dubious to assume there will even be states struggling for dominance by this time. The cathedral wants one state and seems to get what it wants. The opposing strategy next most likely, seems to be the polar opposite no state. In both scenarios the motivational imperative to race to annihilation doesn’t exist.

    By the time these machines are becoming possible they will be impossible to hide.

    Thats not to say there would be no advantage to devices as intelligent as possible without risk. Strategies could very well be developed that would eliminate risk.Once white and yellow understand there is no advantage only certain self annihilation from fully free AI, that fully free AI does not serve anyone, Incrementalism is one.
    AI just smart enough to move us ahead as fast as we can implement changes actually useful as compared to a machine that simply annihilates for for reasons we cant understand. If after a period of this assuming we are still in need of machine intelligence which is unlikely [but is a separate problem] we could use machine below the threshold of danger to assess the advice of free AI that is physically constrained. Amoral AI would interpret for us an immoral AI that is ‘airgapped’ Still its not really clear what practical advantage free AI really would have, the practical advantage to humans is likely on a scale of AI 1-10 maybe AI 4 while the danger zone AI 8> In other words theres no practical incentive to build such dangerous AI

    anthropomorphize machines with human instincts is silly, we have these often irrational instincts as legacy traits a machine would have none of them consciousness let alone self consciousness may not have arisen spontaneously with intelligence as we suppose but rather for a specific purpose inconsequential to intelligence per se.

    Even if some form of consciousness even self consciousness were to arise its pretty dubious to assume other animal/human emotion/ instinct traits would also arise. The will to survive did not result from intelligence, the will to power of any kind is observed in the dumbest of creatures. There are a lot of anthropomorphic assumptions about AI personality being made.

    Admittedly I know little about this but a few pages into a few papers that I stopped reading because frankly just wild speculation by people with advanced degrees. if anyone can point me if its possible to some thing a dummy like me can understand, yet will actually bring some evidence to these specious speculations I would appreciate it.As far as i can tell the entire argument is it will absolutely destroy us in seconds of awakening and we absolutely can not resist the temptation knowing this full well. Well I fully understand how in certain scenarios that involve a lot of ifs upon ifs free AI might destroy us in seconds. I fully understand the temptation, and even the practical moronity of high IQ people, and the moral moronity of high power people. I dont however see us being quite that stupid.I see us very carefully proceeding to build smart machine that will help us in our own interests.


    Posted on January 14th, 2017 at 3:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Outliers (#40) « Amerika Says:

    […] The Intelligence Problem (Nick Land/Outside In) […]

    Posted on January 15th, 2017 at 11:48 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment