20 ms·
These glimpses of powerful, future anti-aging treatments is why AGI research must not be slowed down under any circumstances. Immortality is in sight. I have t
by optimalsolver 3y ago
These glimpses of powerful, future anti-aging treatments is why AGI research must not be slowed down under any circumstances. Immortality is in sight.
I have to say, it's annoying to have been born before radical life-extending technology becomes available, but late enough in the timeline to consider it an actual possibility.
- chrisweekly 3y agoNick Harkaway (world-class author, son of John Le Carre) explores this idea in his highly-entertaining, extremely well-written, and thought-provoking novel, Titanium Noir. Highly recommended!
- pointlessone 3y agoWe need to counterbalance that with a chance of extinction. /s
- nathias 3y agocheer up, we will be the last to die
- rbanffy 3y agoIt’s an interesting concept that, just a couple generations down the road, there will be relatively few people who have experienced aging and the death that comes with it. I remember in Cocoon, one of the most touching scenes is between a husband who just lost his wife and an alien captain who just lost a friend for the first time in his multi millennium life. The alien’s empathy towards the tragedy of human condition drives him to offer immortality to the old humans he befriended. And all of them accept, with the exception of the one who lost his wife.
- Tor3 3y agoNot particularly interested in immortality, but I sure could do with some restoration of my memory.. which used to be nearly photographic but is now more like now here, now gone with the wind.
- ChatGTP 3y agoI'm half way through a year of not drinking alcohol. I cannot tell you what it had done for my memory. I think I'll drink beer again someday but the increased memory has really made me question whether I actually will if presented with it. Not sure if you drink or not but if you do, I'd recommend trying it. For me it was an unexpected benefit.
- Tor3 3y agoI basically stopped drinking much of anything alcoholic many decades ago, for no particular reason. No interest, I presume. In general a healthy lifestyle as well, so my reduced memory function seems to be purely an age issue, not that I feel particularly old.
- ChatGTP 3y agoSounds like you’re not drinking enough alcohol!
- moffkalast 3y agoMaybe we can apply the anthropic principle to feel a bit better about it. I.E. we observe the universe to be the way it is because if it were any different, we wouldn't be here to observe it. We could be alive now because it's the statistically most likely time for most humans to be alive, right between the time it took us to slowly explode in population and the time we implode and make ourselves extinct. Otherwise we'd more likely live further in the future since if we continue growing then there's vastly more humans that will live then. We could very well be living in the best time ever, full stop. Food for thought.
- dmarchand90 3y agoI used to be more worried about an anthropic argument that we are living in end times. (If population growth is exponential then you are most likely to be born near end times) But, most people have already died https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12288594/#:~:text=Assuming%20a%20constant%20growth%20rate,whom%205.5%25%20are%20alive%20today https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12288594/#:~:text=Assuming%2.... And population growth is shrinking. So I think we're safe
- moffkalast 3y agoWell the variance on it is definitely huge by human timespan standards, but I think it's not entirely unlikely that most humans that have ever lived will live between something like 1700-2200 AD. Could be 1700-3500 as well if we're lucky. It's also entirely possible that ancient Greeks had a discussion like this and decided that they'll all be dead soon, and couldn't have been more wrong, so the error bars are obviously massive when dealing with only an arbitrary fraction of the distribution.
- ldjkfkdsjnv 3y agoI think we are still too early. Better to be just a few years old right now.
- dumpsterdiver 3y ago> I have to say, it's annoying to have been born before radical life-extending technology becomes available, but late enough in the timeline to consider it an actual possibility. (Justin Timberlake) "Cry me a river"
- flatline 3y agoAlchemy promised similar goals by more mystical means. Taoist practices for life extension go back thousands of years. They would have seemed like actual possibilities to someone living then, too. Just providing some perspective. Medical technologies certainly hold promise, but it may well be another 1000+ years before a meaningful breakthrough occurs. Or it may never.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Alchemy promised similar goals by more mystical means. Taoist practices for life extension go back thousands of years. Neither of these were based on the scientific method, a proven process for discovery and knowledge refinement.
- MrDresden 3y agoAnimal models do not always, and in fact quite often not at all, translate over to humans. We all know this, but it is worth bringing it up on a regular basis.
- holoduke 3y agoCan you name a 'model'? Not sure what you mean?
- q845712 3y ago"animal models" is a fairly standard phrase in research: When people research depression, alzheimers, cancer, etc., they generally start with mice and work their way up through monkeys before coming to human trials. For many conditions there's specific "lines" of mice that have been bred or even genetically modified to exhibit those conditions in a reliable or extreme way. Depression is particularly challenging since you can't ask an animal how it's feeling, and frankly nearly all animals used in laboratories are understimulated, removed from their natural habitat, and probably a little "depressed". (see e.g. the "rat park" studies (https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/what-does-rat-park-teach-us-about-addiction https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/what-does-rat-park-tea...) that showed that rats were much less likely to self-administer cocaine if they were in an environment that let them have a more enjoyable/fulfilling/natural life otherwise.) So anyway "animal models" just means "an animal mice/rats/monkeys/etc. that we have decided has enough of the same symptoms of the human disease that we can use it to study treatments of that disease", and it's fairly common for something to work in mice but fail in monkeys, or even to work in both mice and monkeys but not work or have very undesirable side-effects in humans. (side note: one of the least discussed things in pharma is how they source the first humans for trialling a new treatment, which does carry non-trivial risk to the human "guinea pigs" - it's generally people who are poor and desperate.)
- otikik 3y agoImmortality for the extremely wealthy perhaps. The rest of us, at best, will have just enough to keep being productive, until we are no longer needed.
- optimalsolver 3y agoThink of rich people as beta testers.
- ben_w 3y agoIt's in the interest of the rich for the poor to be the beta testers. When anti-aging becomes real rather than fantasy, there are going to be so many mutually incompatible conspiracy theories.
- midoridensha 3y ago>It's in the interest of the rich for the poor to be the beta testers. You're assuming the rich are rational. The billionaires on the OceanGate Titan didn't think this way; they were perfectly happy to beta-test a shoddily-designed sub.
- ben_w 3y agoI was half tempted to reference that myself, but if I had, someone else would have replied with all the testing SpaceX does. (The recent explosion was such a test). (And that sub had apparently been to depth before? I didn't follow the details…)
- midoridensha 3y agoThe fact that one billionaire's company does a decent job testing doesn't mean that billionaire customers are paying attention, or that other billionaires aren't happy to be beta-testers for a different company that doesn't believe in testing or safety or regulation. I think the OceanGate disaster just shows that billionaires aren't any smarter or more rational than the rest of us.
- mellavora 3y agoThe problem with immortality is how does society create room for the next generation?
- sjcsjc 3y agoThese maybe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder
- DennisP 3y agoYep. Go with that and the solar system has room for trillions of people. If we invent practical fusion power by then, we can also spread out into the Oort Cloud.
- moffkalast 3y agoEach generation gets a moon to terraform.
- ericmcer 3y agoJust make it a choice, immortality or have children.
- MattPalmer1086 3y agoI have to mention this book: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Tomorrows https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Tomorrows
- rbanffy 3y agoOr have one every few decades, with plenty time to assess what worked and what didn’t.
- soligern 3y agoOr a better choice of one child per immortal couple.
- 3y ago
- dmarchand90 3y agoOh yes please. I look forward to being kept alive forever by a machine god with incomprehensible motivations. Lol jk I still don't want to age and die to be honest
- rbanffy 3y agoThe only difference from our current most likely future is the immortality part, so why not?
- dmarchand90 3y agoI was thinking of more of a "i have no mouth and yet I must scream" or a black mirror "white Christmas" scenario Edit: to be clear I would still take the immortality like 100%
- rubyfan 3y agoWouldn’t modern medicine would be considered “radical life-extending technology” to people living 200 years ago? https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-united-states-all-time/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-...
- Contusion3532 3y agoAFAIK, it's a bit misleading. Much of that increase is due to a decrease in infant mortality and childhood related illnesses.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ChatGTP 3y agoI wonder if this would be true in all cultures though? Australian Aboriginals lives incredibly healthy lifestyles and had access to an abundance of incredible foods. I don't know if they'd live as long as people today but I'd be surprised if many didn't at least go till at least 70+?
- jncfhnb 3y agoMost adults lived to about 60 in most places and times. 70+ is not noteworthy.
- inglor_cz 3y ago"Most adults lived to about 60 in most places and times." Medieval European burials at least tend to cluster way lower than that. In the Dark Ages, skeletons of people older than 60 are rather uncommon (like 1:30), in the High Middle Ages, they become somewhat more common, but still less than 1:10. Of all the population groups, the clergy was by far the most long-lived in pre-modern times. A nonviolent line of work, plus almost guaranteed supply of food. Even in the 18th century in fairly developed Britain, only about 70 per cent of adults (18+) celebrated their 40th birthday.
- Contusion3532 3y agoThe earth has a carrying capacity of less than one billion people if those people have a USA level of consumption. How would we deal with this problem if people stopped dying or had their lifespans increased dramatically?
- JackFr 3y agoWell, that really speaks to your worldview and your ideas on the meaning and purpose of life. Why is that a problem? Is the purpose of life hedonic consumption, where there seems to be no other point than racking up a high score? Is there something more?
- Contusion3532 3y agoI'm actually for us -- especially in the west -- to significantly reduce our carbon footprint and consumption. My personal consumption habits are well-below the average in the west. I think hedonistic consumption is a hollow pursuit. But, I understand that most people will not voluntarily reduce their consumption habits.
- ChatGTP 3y agoIf people could live for ~ 500 years, the preservation of the Earth would turn into a much more important. Anyone who is alamost 100 would have cause for concern about climate change immediately.
- blagie 3y agoWhy do you think the Earth has a fixed carrying capacity? As with Moore's Law for decades, there have been many similar predictions in the past, and they fell by the wayside as technology, output, and productivity improved. At some point, Moore's law gave way to more gradual increases, and the same may happen here, but we have no idea how or when.
- Contusion3532 3y agoI'd say human contributed greenhouse gas emissions are the main limiting factor for the earth's carrying capacity for human lives. We're already experiencing many more severe climate related weather events and the problem is only going to get worse each year.
- derbOac 3y agoAlthough I agree antiaging interventions need to be pursued completely — I'm aware of arguments against them but am not sure there's any serious opposition to them? — there are systemic physical reasons to think there might be hard limits on age.
- TriNetra 3y agoWe're already immortal, just that this body made up of ever-changing physical elements isn't. We should also strive to reach to a state where we realize experientially our true nature of eternal, pure consciousness, and then we can manufacture whatever body we would need just like our mind manufacture new worlds, objects and different bodies for us in dreams during sleep.
- achow 3y agoHow to know whether 'Consciousness' is just an output of ever-changing physical element too - in this case flow of energy in neurons. These flow of energy changes the states of neurons and sum total of that is perception of the 'world' which we think is the consciousness. Corollary - Due to the quantity and 'quality' of each neuron in each individual, the perception of the world or the reality would also vary for each individual.
- rbanffy 3y agoWhile the patterns engraved in the past cannot be changed, they also cannot be easily retrieved and my own perception of self ends when there is no longer a brain changing my “state vector”.
- idopmstuff 3y agoI really improved my lifestyle (exercise, diet, etc.) once I realized that right now, living longer has whatever the opposite of diminishing returns is. Each year that I live doesn't just give another year, it also gives me whatever additional time that life extension technology comes up with that year. It's plausible that the value of some extra year is infinite, because that's when we get to the point of immortality. I hate running, but given that math I feel compelled to get up and put on my running shoes.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoHowever much you exercise your body becomes less efficient at producing and absorbing any number of amino acids and proteins, including arginine, creatine, taurine, etc. It’s not unreasonable to supplement exercise with safe anti aging regimes, and it’s absurd to have an anti aging regime without improved diet, regular mixed exercise, etc. There’s no reason to willfully ignore the science, which says aging comes with an inexorable decline in various crucial amino acids, etc, and that exercise/diet improves the entire system. Doing a sensible and safe total system regime that optimizes along a typical decline curve has all sorts of benefits, including the ability to better take advantage of exercise and diet, but also reduces systemic dysfunction due to imbalances in the availability of basic building blocks like amino acids, minerals, etc, that can be difficult to get in sufficient quantity from the best of diets for an aged person. TL;DR these aren’t mutually exclusive and are synergistic approaches
- ChatGTP 3y agoI didn't see a single reference to AI in the article, so what does AGI have to do with anything?
- optimalsolver 3y agoSee, there's this prospective thing called AGI that would hypothetically carry out scientific research much faster than humans. You can get started by reading the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
- ChatGTP 3y agoDon’t be a dork.
- optimalsolver 3y agoOnly one around here is the person asking the ridiculous question of how AGI is related to this.
- yeknoda 3y agoImmortal is not eternal
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoI mean sure, but only if all other health problems are also solved, not to mention society which is already struggling under the pressure of an aging population - causing retirement ages to increase, employment under elderly increasing, and health care systems like the NHS or the US system to crumble to the point of people dying while waiting to be seen by a GP or being referred to A&E to sit and wait for hours waiting for underpaid and overworked staff for something a GP should be looking at.
- rbanffy 3y ago> is already struggling under the pressure of an aging population Wouldn’t making them healthier increase their economic output at the same time it’d decrease their cost to the healthcare system?
- DennisP 3y agoThe health problems that kill the most people are consequences of aging. People in their twenties have only about a one in a thousand chance of dying each year, and a lot of those deaths are avoidable. Avoid dangerous drugs, live in a safe area, and take public transport, and you'll likely live for thousands of years if you maintain the biology of a 25-year-old. (Sources in another comment I posted here.) If that were an option, I'd be happy to forgo social security. If everyone were biologically young, there'd be a lot less for a healthcare system to do.
- ben_w 3y agoThe difference between an AI which helps speed up medicine development by simulating drug safety, and one which finds tens of thousands of deadly neurotoxins, is a single "min" -> "max" or equivalent. (And that was something that happened about a year ago already).
- rbanffy 3y agoAssume that someone will always be using the best tools available (some illegally) for the most nefarious purposes. With that in mind, the moral thing is to use the very best tools available to at least counter those efforts.
- rhyme-boss 3y agoSo any safety concerns that would lead to slower development should be cast aside because your life is more important than future lives?
- BurningFrog 3y agoPet peeve: Defeating aging does not make anyone immortal!
- rbanffy 3y agoTrue. One can still die of disease or accidents. That’s why so many stories about immortal humans also have them making backup copies of their minds.
- wheelerof4te 3y agoI'm surprised at how much scrolling I had to do in order to find this "little" problem.
- DennisP 3y agoBut it does get you to a lifespan of several thousand years, as long as you're reasonably careful. I posted sources in another comment here.
- palebluedot 3y agoVery good point. And with very long lifespans (thousands of years), all of those low-probability events that may cause accidental death (airplane crash, getting hit by a car crossing the street, violence, etc.) may really start to add up to a not-so-low probability of at least one of them happening within your extended lifespan.
- kypro 3y agoPlease stop. Not all of us want a future where everyone is an immortal, useless consumer ruled over by AGI gods or the select few who own them. I don't think we've yet learnt that technological progress today comes with much more risk and is not an automatic good. The atomic bomb probably should have woken us up to this, but I worry we'll need to learn this lesson the hard way eventually. For example, a forest fire in California isn't a big deal in the context of global ecosystem, but if that forest is your world then it's everything. The invention of fire might come at the risk of burning down a forest or two, but it doesn't come at the risk of burning down the entire Earth. If fire did come at that cost humans wouldn't have made it. AGI doesn't just have the ability to make you a useless immortal meat bag as you apparently desire. It also has the ability to provide the intelligence and knowledge needed so that every human on Earth can create create a civilisation destroying virus if they so choose. I know it's weird, but I like the present. We have problems, but all in all it's a great time to be alive. I'm not immortal, but I think that's okay. We should be more careful about seeking to make radical changes which could destabilise the progress we've made.
- rbanffy 3y agoSpeak for yourself. I’d take immortality without thinking twice.
- lo_zamoyski 3y agoImmortality in this universe is a physical impossibility, and even if it were medically possible, it is easily lost.
- erikpukinskis 3y agoGreat, so we can look forward to having presidents who are 200yo instead of 100yo?
- firstplacelast 3y agoPeople living longer makes the world worse. Maybe there’s an economic system that would not do this, but currently most people’s lives are not improved with increased longevity across the board. It’s one of the reasons I left my job in pharma. The constant circle jerk about making the world better + comparative low pay when so few could afford a condo on their own salary. Whose lives are we making better? Certainly not the lives of the people I see every day.
- penjelly 3y ago> AGI research must not be slowed down under any circumstances. Immortality is in sight. wow. So progress at any cost? Seems misguided to me
- jliptzin 3y agoYou will never find yourself in a timeline in which you're not alive. Perhaps you've already died in all the other timelines; this is the one where you live long enough to benefit from life-extending technology and eventually immortality.