= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MichaelBishop comments on Intelligence enhancement as existential risk mitigation - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (198)
Logical fallacy: those Nobel prize winners do not have increased IQ. Presumably they have high IQ.
If Nobel prize winners all have very high IQs, that tells us that high IQ is a necessary - but not necessarily sufficient - requirement for winning Nobel prizes. And that itself tells us little about what's needed for quality research, even presuming that all Nobels are awarded for quality research. (I happen to know that they aren't, but that's another story.)
What are the Type I and Type II error rates of the Nobel prize award process?
IMO, the more important question is whether the overall system of incentives for scientists is effective.