| ▲ | KasianFranks 3 hours ago | |
The positive impact on human aging/lifespan/healthspan is not being talked about enough when it comes to AI+biosciences. | ||
| ▲ | dgellow 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
Have we already seen that impact? Or is it speculative? Because the speculative part is discussed all the time | ||
| ▲ | LogicFailsMe an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
Cutting sugars, not smoking, regular checkups, watching your weight, managing stress, and getting enough exercise and sleep still trumps any other therapeutic-based life extension approach. But I know, I know, it's actual effort, and technology is about making things easier so it's a non-starter. But I do agree that if we're on the verge* of von Neumann replicators and getting replaced by Pokhumans** to cheer on the ASI, then curing cancer, immortality and cryo-suspension are likely trivial achievements in comparison. *Nope, not even close, but don't tell that to the ASI cultists, that's like questioning the veracity of the gospels now. **Yes, that's the strong claim in AI 2027. And the democratic party apparently believes it. | ||
| ▲ | ACCount39 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
The issue is, you kind of have to not get wrecked by the negative impacts to collect those positive impacts. Unfortunately, "AI that's competent at bioweapon R&D" might be an easier mark to hit than "AI that can put a dent in the aging process". And biorisks can have a very favorable "resource input -> suffering output" rate of returns. | ||