My own position is that humanity has already passed that threshold. But rather than having our selection based on any single AI, it's based on a gestalt of many, as well as symbiotic with the kinds of technology we create.
Humanity invents hammers, but access to a hammer also transforms the dynamic of human prosperity, and which attributes are the most valuable, and by how much.
Widespread literacy almost certainly transformed human attributes long term. Selecting for people who could more easily become literate in societies where literacy had value. And it becomes *more* valuable the more things can be done with it, up until the point where people choose for whatever reason to subsidize the existence of the incurably illiterate.
One of the few big errors Faulk made, he admitted to, and that was in regards to overnormalizing averages. Which are even still statistically and demographically effective. They're just a very blunt instrument of selection.
Most of the biologists agree with *him* they just don't use the same explicit language he does most of the time, because the university system is often very progressive.
This is like where building 7 shit ends up being holographic planes and cruise missiles. You have to invent a grand conspiracy because the only other alternative is that a basement dweller like Faulk simply doesn't know what he is talking about.
Yes the man spends hours a day looking for data points to try and shoehorn into his narrative he's certainly dedicated. He just doen't know anything about the topic.
Well the WIlsons obviously and Dawkins, a lot of Trivers Trivers is my spirit animal. I like Sopalsky. I think on cultural technologies (from our earlier conversation) Boyd and Richerson is a must-read.
You have to understand Faulk doesn't get how evolutionary theory even works. So if it's something you study it sounds like a guy saying, "The aerospace engineers are wrong. If you look at **This** chart you will see we have to put the wings on *sideways*"
