It's actually the opposite and more complicated than that. AI-developed nootropi...

kunai · 2026-09-21T20:27:21 1790022441

I really would like to know what kind of drugs they place in the Bay Area water supply that produce comments like this.

eli_gottlieb · 2026-09-22T03:39:21 1790048361

If you find out, please let me know, because I feel like the filter in my pitcher isn't getting all of them.

PorciiVorbesc · 2026-09-21T17:51:23 1790013083

If only popping pills were the easy hack to people getting smarter.

That's like saying drinking coffee will make people go faster.

kelseyfrog · 2026-09-22T00:51:48 1790038308

It's like saying anabolic steroids increase performance.

whattheheckheck · 2026-09-21T17:49:17 1790012957

And distribution and will to take bioenhancements is equal across all intelligences?

kelseyfrog · 2026-09-21T17:55:15 1790013315

That is the null hypothesis, yes. Do you have evidence otherwise?

the_real_cher · 2026-09-21T18:10:24 1790014224

A good portion of people hate A.I. and won't even use it...they won't use a computer program to enhance their intellience, much less taking a pill...

kelseyfrog · 2026-09-21T18:58:02 1790017082

This is an inference, not evidence. It doesn't meet my epistemic standard necessary to reject the null hypothesis.

OrderlyTiamat · 2026-09-21T22:17:47 1790029067

Good for you. But you introduced this statement:

> AI-developed nootropics and germline editing will saturate human intelligence across individuals.

This is a forum, not a Bayesian-updating machine. So common courtesy is for you to take up the burden of proof for your own statements. Why do you think this is the null?