In recent years GWAS studies seem to suggest that correlations between psychiatric disease genes and positive traits might have been overstated.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
The claim is hedged ('seem to suggest', 'might'). It says that GWAS studies from roughly 2010–2015 indicated that earlier-reported links between psychiatric disease genes and positive traits (such as creativity or intelligence) might have been overstated. TRUE: GWAS or genetic-correlation studies published before August 2015 found weak, null or smaller-than-expected genetic links between psychiatric-risk variants and positive traits, and the literature at the time read this as weakening earlier claims. MOSTLY TRUE: such findings existed, but they were limited to some disorders or traits, or were mixed with a few contrary results. MIXED: GWAS evidence before August 2015 was roughly evenly split between weaker and supported links. MOSTLY FALSE: most GWAS evidence then available supported or strengthened the links, and only isolated results pointed toward overstatement. FALSE: GWAS evidence up to August 2015 clearly confirmed or strengthened the links, with nothing suggesting overstatement. Judge against the literature available as of 2015-08-17 only.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (2)
-
E1 Genetic variation links creativity to psychiatric disorders Nature Neuroscience (News and Views, by Matthew C Keller & Peter M Visscher) · July 2015
“The associations between the genetic risk scores and creativity were highly statistically significant”
-
E2 Genetic variation links creativity to psychiatric disorders Nature Neuroscience (News and Views, by Matthew C Keller & Peter M Visscher) · July 2015
“The biological relationship between psychiatric disorders and creativity is therefore probably even larger for BD than for SCZ.”
Reasoning
The evidence is a single mid-2015 commentary on one set of results, which reports highly significant associations between genetic risk scores and creativity [E1][E2]. It does not show what the GWAS literature as a whole found before August 2015, so it cannot settle whether most evidence supported the links or only isolated results pointed toward overstatement.
Cite this claim
Dario Amodei, “In recent years GWAS studies seem to suggest that correlations between psychiatric disease genes and positive traits might have been overstated.” (said 17 August 2015). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_9c583012eec0, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_9c583012eec0
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Dario Amodei
-
Mostly false
“As we’ve demonstrated today, humans can collaborate with AI to perform the experiments, validate key results in a few weeks and, if necessary, work with the AI to iterate on what they find.”
-
Mixed
“It’s easy to dismiss this as a one-off or curiosity, but we’ve repeatedly seen a pattern where AI performance in new intellectual domains goes from weak to superhuman in a matter of a few years.”
-
Resolved true
“I’ve written a new essay on why the AI industry should slow down, with a three-part plan for doing so.”
-
Mostly true
“the public has a negative view of AI”
-
Mixed
“Similarly, the “Pacing the Frontier” letter envisions (or at least Anthropic’s preferred implementation of it envisions) modulating the pace of the very best models while not constraining those who…”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.