Hacker News Reader

Comment by cyberpanther | Hacker News Reader

You can't sum a person up by a genetic score, personality test, or any other score or test. So this may or may not happen, but it will never be effective.

There are too many possibilities and if they get good maybe they will adopt a model of intuition like "AlphaGo" to win. But intuition often fails and life isn't as binary as picking winners and losers.

View on HN

Your assuming that no trait is purely negative. There is no reason to assume this is the case.

No I'm saying every trait must be weighed with a complex interaction of known traits, other immeasurable traits, and the changing environment a person is in. So yes there could be a purely negative trait but it is very hard to tell without testing that combination out. Just detecting a trait, I think is insufficient.

I think the chaotic domain of the Cynefin framework describes this situation the best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_Framework

Probing or sensing is insufficient, acting must occur.

Maybe a simulation could be sufficient way of acting?

IMO, simulation should work for a range of things. Over the long term things like uncorrected Vision may be less harshly maintained by natural selection. So, a minor level of genetic engineering may be useful over the long term (100,000 years) if we want to avoid ever stronger dependence on medical assistance.

> So, a minor level of genetic engineering may be useful over the long term (100,000 years) if we want to avoid ever stronger dependence on medical assistance.

We don't know where 'Politicians are able to do 100ky policy planning' comes in the tech-tree, though :D

From the current state of affairs, it appears to be still far out in the future...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com