4 ms·

There's room to improve the median experience, sure. Maybe not a whole lot, though. And I'm not sure people making it to 110 is positive; I'm interested in actu

There's room to improve the median experience, sure. Maybe not a whole lot, though. And I'm not sure people making it to 110 is positive; I'm interested in actually living, not a couple decades of being warehoused. > I haven't felt like we've been very close. I'm not saying you personally felt like that. I'm saying that that the "sci fi things are just around the corner" routine is perennial. AGI and robots and flying cars have been coming soon for longer than most people have been alive. I also note that "couple therapies that each buy a few years" is a major retreat from the point I was actually adressing which was life made unrecognizable by salamander limbs, etc.

mlyle 3y ago
> And I'm not sure people making it to 110 is positive; I'm interested in actually living, Centenarians don't do so badly in a lot of quality of life measures. They actually have a lower level of dependency, on average, than those in their late 80s. But in any sense, this is why I mentioned QALYs (quality-adjusted life years). > AGI and robots and flying cars have been coming soon for longer than most people have been alive. I think this misstates what most people have felt was imminent. Occasional luminaries feeling that flying cars were close (e.g. Ford), and breathless media pieces does not a consensus view make. In any case, this whole line of argument ("Lots of people have believed this forever@!(!") even if it were true, would not be a great argument against assessing the current prospects as pretty good. > I also note that "couple therapies that each buy a few years" is a major retreat from the point I was actually adressing which was life made unrecognizable by salamander limbs, etc. 3 years of QALY for the population would likely look like 30% of the population getting some crazy-ass therapy that adds many years of QALY, and many other people dying too soon or having other ailments that are not addressed. Alternatively it could come from finding something unexpectedly cheap and broadly helpful that you could treat a very large percentage of the population from and that most people benefit and get 5 years.
- wpietri 3y ago
  When I point out your handwaving, I am not looking for more handwaving in response. My impression stands. I think you, like many, are indulging in technoutopian wishful thinking.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    > When I point out your handwaving, I am not looking for more handwaving in response. ??? You seemed to broadly agree with the one and only comment that I made, and then I offered some nuanced disagreement to your statement. And then you have this, frankly, hostile response. It's really rich for someone with this in their profile: > than people being respectful and/or standing behind their words. Exercise some respect. We're talking about assessing probabilities of distant events on multi-decade horizons. It's going to be hand-wavy, just like your dismissal of the prospects is hand-wavy (it's unlikely because allegedly people were too optimistic about flying cars??) > I think you, like many, are indulging in technoutopian wishful thinking. Well, the horizon I pointed out is long enough that I've got relatively poor prospects of benefitting from it myself...
    - wpietri 3y ago
      I believe the response is appropriate and on target. My preference for respectful dialog in general does not mean I have to put up with politely worded jackassery. Indeed, given that I was specifically challenging what looked to me like bullshit, I think your comments were not at all respectful, even if they were politely written. If you real goal was to make some sort of unrelated point to the discussion you chimed in on, maybe try posting a top-level comment of your own, as I find your participation here unwelcome and borderline incoherent.
      - mlyle 3y ago
        I think the way you're choosing to treat other people is well outside the site guidelines, and I think the way that it violates norms is documented pretty well in the voting history here. > If you real goal was to make some sort of unrelated point to the discussion you chimed in on This is a discussion forum. The whole point is for people to "chime in on" things. You're not the top-level commenter here. You make assertions, and you should not be too surprised if people have a range of reactions to those assertions: agreement, disagreement, nuanced agreement with some caveats. It may even be a small part of your comment that people respond to.

mlyle 3y ago

> And I'm not sure people making it to 110 is positive; I'm interested in actually living, Centenarians don't do so badly in a lot of quality of life measures. They actually have a lower level of dependency, on average, than those in their late 80s. But in any sense, this is why I mentioned QALYs (quality-adjusted life years). > AGI and robots and flying cars have been coming soon for longer than most people have been alive. I think this misstates what most people have felt was imminent. Occasional luminaries feeling that flying cars were close (e.g. Ford), and breathless media pieces does not a consensus view make. In any case, this whole line of argument ("Lots of people have believed this forever@!(!") even if it were true, would not be a great argument against assessing the current prospects as pretty good. > I also note that "couple therapies that each buy a few years" is a major retreat from the point I was actually adressing which was life made unrecognizable by salamander limbs, etc. 3 years of QALY for the population would likely look like 30% of the population getting some crazy-ass therapy that adds many years of QALY, and many other people dying too soon or having other ailments that are not addressed. Alternatively it could come from finding something unexpectedly cheap and broadly helpful that you could treat a very large percentage of the population from and that most people benefit and get 5 years.

wpietri 3y ago
When I point out your handwaving, I am not looking for more handwaving in response. My impression stands. I think you, like many, are indulging in technoutopian wishful thinking.
- mlyle 3y ago
  > When I point out your handwaving, I am not looking for more handwaving in response. ??? You seemed to broadly agree with the one and only comment that I made, and then I offered some nuanced disagreement to your statement. And then you have this, frankly, hostile response. It's really rich for someone with this in their profile: > than people being respectful and/or standing behind their words. Exercise some respect. We're talking about assessing probabilities of distant events on multi-decade horizons. It's going to be hand-wavy, just like your dismissal of the prospects is hand-wavy (it's unlikely because allegedly people were too optimistic about flying cars??) > I think you, like many, are indulging in technoutopian wishful thinking. Well, the horizon I pointed out is long enough that I've got relatively poor prospects of benefitting from it myself...
  - wpietri 3y ago
    I believe the response is appropriate and on target. My preference for respectful dialog in general does not mean I have to put up with politely worded jackassery. Indeed, given that I was specifically challenging what looked to me like bullshit, I think your comments were not at all respectful, even if they were politely written. If you real goal was to make some sort of unrelated point to the discussion you chimed in on, maybe try posting a top-level comment of your own, as I find your participation here unwelcome and borderline incoherent.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      I think the way you're choosing to treat other people is well outside the site guidelines, and I think the way that it violates norms is documented pretty well in the voting history here. > If you real goal was to make some sort of unrelated point to the discussion you chimed in on This is a discussion forum. The whole point is for people to "chime in on" things. You're not the top-level commenter here. You make assertions, and you should not be too surprised if people have a range of reactions to those assertions: agreement, disagreement, nuanced agreement with some caveats. It may even be a small part of your comment that people respond to.