Looks like you&#x27;ve been reading Bostrom. I was actually annoyed about the amount of time he spent on the whole notion of genetically engineering smarter humans. I think his intent was to rigorously prove that even if technology for some reason halted and all progress in machine learning ended along with moore&#x27;s law we&#x27;d still reach super intelligence. From that standpoint I get it as a philosopher to create a bulletproof argument. But I think it&#x27;s very unlikely that it will happen that way. It&#x27;s already far more practical to teach Watson to read better than genetically engineer a new Einstein. Also I don&#x27;t think there&#x27;s an iq 200 set of genes, there&#x27;s probably trade offs that would prevent this a brain has a given number of neurons and they operate at a slow speed so this is like trying to breed a better horse when cars are obviously on the horizon and will be followed by jets.