It's interesting how closely tied "goodness" and "intelligence" are.

To make a mistake is to be a bad person. To be stupid is to be bad.

I can call you weak. I can even call you ugly, cowardly or a flibbertigibbet. But if I call you stupid look out!

Like our whole worth as humans is summed in our ability to talk smart and solve riddles like a trained animal.

Which seems pretty stupid.

> I can call you weak. I can even call you ugly, cowardly or a flibbertigibbet. But if I call you stupid look out!

This might be a bit peculiar to the HN crowd; calling someone cowardly is fighting-words in many groups.

I've thought about this a lot and I think there's a reasonable hypothesis in evopsych (I know, I know...):

If you're making material mistakes that hurt the social group you're in, especially things that cost extra work for someone else to undo and redo correctly, then you could be identified as someone ripe for removal from the group. Ostracization means assigning taboo or outsider status to that person, either as a way to get them to shape up and earn back the trust they lost or to remove them entirely with little remorse.

It will seem even stupider once computers can convincingly do all the "intelligent" things better than us.

In fact, they can already seem smarter, even when they're not.

Maybe we can move on to prioritizing humans on other criteria -- like how nice they are to each other, how good they are at making nice art, or skiing an amazing line down a mountain, etc.

Indeed, except that IQ has not became a thing to optimize for, and even if it was, there are no known ways to increase it.

There is one way:

https://gwern.net/embryo-selection

Education and QoL seem to be correlated.