Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

YJeezy t1_jal0u71 wrote

It's already happening. Study of epigenetic reset has made huge strides over the last few years and investment is growing rapidly, including Jeff Bezos investment in Altos Labs. Lots of remarkable progress on rolling back the age in mice released by Harvard recently as well.

22

94746382926 t1_jakx049 wrote

Nobody knows. Lots of progress has been made with funding but so far we have nothing that meaningfully improves lifespan in a general sense. Diet and exercise is still your best bet.

9

Suolucidir t1_jaky7yv wrote

I agree with diet and exercise being the current best bet.

With that said, I think a brain-computer interface that allows read/write will come along before we reverse biological aging.

When you can read/write thoughts or memories to a drive, whether in real time or during an induced dreamlike state, I think we'll have to seriously consider whether we want to keep living primarily within our bodies.

8

PostScarcityHumanity t1_jalnt2z wrote

But I don't know if transfer of consciousness to another entity is immortality or just duplicating yourself? You know what I mean? It's like transferring your memories to an identical twin instead of you prolonging your life.

11

Double0Peter t1_jal3zak wrote

I'm just gonna drop this from another post I've commented on, because I feel like very few people understand that the current large language model AI we have today is not AGI nor is it necessarily on the path to it either. It MIGHT be a step towards AGI but anyone saying it IS the path to it is saying so with false confidence.

So, no one has mentioned yet that the AI you and Sam Altman are talking about isn't the AI we have today. You are talking about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). And sure, it could absolutely revolutionize how the entire world works. Maybe it could solve all of our problems, end disease, no one lives in poverty or hunger anymore and we don't have to work.

But that is Artificial General intelligence, not the predictive text based AI everyone's losing their minds about today. Don't get me wrong, I think current stuff like GPT, replikAI, all of these current firms might really change some INDUSTRIES but it's not AGI. It doesn't think for itself, hell it doesn't even understand what it's saying. It predicts what it should say based on the data it was trained on, which is terabytes of information from the web, so yes it can give a pretty reasonable response to almost all things, but it doesn't understand what it's saying. It's just a really really really strong autocomplete mixed with some chatbot capabilities so that it can answer and respond in a conversational manner.

If the data we trained it on said the sun wasn't real, it would in full confidence tell you that. What it says has no truth value, it's just the extremely complex algorithm spitting out what the most probable "answer" is based on what it was trained on. It probably won't replace any creative work in the sense of innovative new machines, products, designs, inventions, engineering. Art it might, but thats more cultural than work revolutionizing.

There's also no reason to believe these models will ever evolve into AGI without some other currently undiscovered breakthrough as currently, the main way we improve these models is just training them on a larger set of information.

Ezra Klein has a really good hour long podcast on this topic called "The Skeptical Take on the AI Revolution"

8

Chroderos t1_jalsqon wrote

If only people realized that’s how human minds work too.

5

Double0Peter t1_jambv2h wrote

Partly maybe, but the human brain has much more in addition to this.

What about the hard problem of consciousness?

What about internal models of how things work?

What about having the ability to interact with our environment?

If we know how the human brain worked in entirety why haven't any brain in a box ever been created?

1

green_meklar t1_jal75li wrote

LEV probably within 20 years in the lab plus another 5 years or so for widespread deployment.

Actual biological immortality, maybe add another 10 - 15 years, although it's an open question whether mind uploading will arrive first and make the biotech approach obsolete.

6

Rogermcfarley t1_jalo044 wrote

Surely we'd need to understand the basis of consciousness first. What is the principle construct of matter that forms consciousness? At what point does consciousness arise from organisation of matter? What are the mechanisms involved etc?

7

green_meklar t1_jayjkwl wrote

You mean for mind uploading? Honestly, probably not. I doubt we'll have entirely solved the HPOC by the time we figure out mind uploading technology.

We will figure out what sorts of algorithms generate consciousness, even if we don't entirely understand why. That will probably be achieved before we master mind uploading, or at least not long after.

1

Rogermcfarley t1_jazooid wrote

Generate actual consciousness or an illusion of consciousness? The issue is the definition of consciousness itself and there are multiple philosophical definitions and thoughts on consciousness. Even if a machine appears to have conscious thought it doesn't mean that machine is actually conscious. I for example believe I'm conscious because I have awareness of my surroundings and inner reflection of my being. Of course that is my own belief in my experience. However a person could believe they are the only conscious being in the Universe because they only experience their own Intrinsic consciousness, of which they assume is the same as other humans.

So whether a machine has actual consciousness in the way humans experience consciousness there doesn't exist a test. We can perform experiments/tests to see if the machine is representing consciousness in the same way we do but that doesn't mean the machine is conscious.

1

green_meklar t1_jb8robf wrote

>Generate actual consciousness or an illusion of consciousness?

The real thing, of course. Fakes only take you so far.

>We can perform experiments/tests to see if the machine is representing consciousness in the same way we do but that doesn't mean the machine is conscious.

It can strongly suggest so, especially if we combine it with a robust algorithmic theory of consciousness.

Presumably none of us will ever be 100% certain that we're not the only thinking being in existence, but that's fine, we get plenty of other things done with less than 100% certainty.

1

hawkwings t1_jalzl1y wrote

Living longer and living forever are 2 different things. I'm inclined to think that humans won't live forever.

2

prophet001 t1_jakzmnj wrote

In the next ten to fifteen years, probably. But don't worry, you'll never be able to afford it.

1

Psychological-Sport1 t1_jaq9p39 wrote

Initially yes, but once the rich demonstrate successful aging reversal tech, and use it on themselves then all their followers will sit up and take notice, if bill gates made many billions selling Microsoft Windows with every new computer then how much would insurance companies charge if you got your anti-aging tuneup every 10 years ???

1

prophet001 t1_jarh0ck wrote

I'm comfortable asserting that that ain't how it's gonna go.

Software is nearly free to replicate and apply. Anti-aging technology will manifestly not be. You've constructed a near-perfect example of false equivalence. A much better comparison would be the current-day bespoke treatments for rare disorders and cancers. I.e. the ones that run to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per treatment.

1

MagicManTX84 t1_jam8l88 wrote

Then the AI decides it has the wrong answer and changes it….

1

No-Wallaby-5568 t1_jaosebu wrote

The leading cause of death is America is heart disease which is a lifestyle disease. It's well known how to avoid it, people just don't do it so people will continue to die.

1

AustinJG t1_jamz99g wrote

Unless things get better here in the states, I'd rather just die of normal old age.

0

kitgainer t1_jal4ajd wrote

Ai can't think outside the box, it can take existing information and extrapolate it according to a logarithm. It's strength is the ability to do this quickly using lots of data, but ultimately the innovation will be the product of the ai's programmers and its users ability to intuit the right questions.

−1

Zemirolha t1_jalu6ob wrote

First we need stop eating meat and dairy. Nature will get rid of us if we abuse our power.

Imagine if all immortals races act like we do today...

−3

NVincarnate t1_jambvmd wrote

Just long enough from today that only people under age 5 will probably ever benefit from them.

−3

kaiww77 t1_jaqs4sk wrote

You have seen the current state of longevity research right? Things are moving ahead rapidly

1

NVincarnate t1_jartily wrote

I know. I'm being pessimistic so I don't get my hopes up and end up disappointed if I die at 80 just before the genetic edit that makes us immortal happens.

1