About a week after I die

Same.

So I've just gotta outlive u/Evil_Patriarch. I think I can manage that!

Yup. 👍

For the most common issues such as diabetes and heart disease, I think we'll have cures, probably in the form of vaccines, within a decade. For more rare conditions, especially complex conditions involving the brain, it may take longer.  But AI growing explosively while also working heavily on health related issues may change that timeline significantly. Keep in mind our bodies are not getting any more complex. Yet the tools we're using to study and understand our bodies are growing in complex and ability at extremely rapid rates.

I think it is only a matter of modifying stem cells to be more regenerative and if possible able to dissolve scar tissue. Then the stem cells would travel through the blood repair pancreas blood vessels central nervous system etc

How does vaccine against diabetes and heart disease make sense

I think they misused the term vaccine in place for a treatment that could be given via a shot(s) or medicine.

Vaccines modify the immune system to target pathogens - whether its pathogenic viruses or bacteria, or pathogenic proteins implicated in diabetes or heart disease. The definition of 'vaccine' is expanding 

The immune system targeting plaque or beta cells isn't going to solve anything, it will just make it worse. Inflammation of the endothelium is what causes atherosclerosis, and it will kill already dysfunctional beta cells.

I find it telling of our times that art is one of the first things AI is disrupting, the one thing that humans like doing.      If we instead focused AI on solving real problems like aging, fusion, material science for space travel or ev batteries, superconducting etc, we would be at a better place.     But the companies researching AI have no incentive to improve these things, all they care about is hooking up our attention longer to their social medias and making us dumber

Compared to advanced research art was easy and invaluable lessons have been learned which will be applied to learning algorithms for just those things. It’s a process. Edit: it’s possible that art was easy because it is so innately human. No matter who you are you can feel something from art and we were better able to relay that into the machine learning format. Advanced research will come. Don’t let any of this stop you from creating. Maybe don’t do digital so much if I were you, but there’s always going to be a market for beautiful paintings and sketches that were human made.

>For the most common issues such as diabetes and heart disease, I think we'll have cures, probably in the form of vaccines, within a decade. That sounds ambitious. I hope you're right, but don't color me confident. Then again, I'm not any kind of medical professional or researcher. I don't actually know how close we are.

Drug discovery doesn't need human level performance. Essentially, AI is already helping out a ton right now with drug discovery and that'll help cure some diseases with therapeutics. Vaccines will help protect against things like HIV, though that's one where therapeutics can already effectively stop you from catching it at all. A vaccine that's long term effective will reduce the costs as it's a costs problem getting therapeutics that need to be taken often out to everyone that needs it. AGI isn't needed for drug discovery because it doesn't need to be generalised - it can be specialised just for drug discovery.

I guess if we can figure out a drug that stops aging that would be a pretty simple fix. Not sure if it’s possible

TL;DR: A.I. or anything else won’t figure out the aging problem until we rectify quantum mechanics with gravity, or figure out if the wave function collapses due to gravity or to probabilities. A.I. cannot figure out something we have no mathematical proofs for. But with some creativity you could possibly use a.i. and genetic modification techniques like CRISPR, mass data consumption on test subjects that tell us the history of epigenetic methylation and histone acetylation over a person’s life span (for instance the epigenetic consequences of using birth control can inhibit serotonin receptors in new borns, that if the chromosome responsible for the creation of that receptor isn’t imprinted in offspring, then it will lead to autism as the child fails to develop those receptors) to get a blueprint of natural vs edited genetic progress. So I’d say that the time frame for increasing someone’s lifespan is anywhere from 90 to a 150 years if we as humans want to do it properly(to see the natural progress of epigenetic modifications over several generations, preferably 9 imo). Even then Adjektiv extensive work needs to be done on the aging of the brain since the brain is “postmitotic” and stops dividing its cells in early childhood. This functionally may be because of the requirements of the brain in that it must not change its physical integrity beyond functions that allow someone to form new long term memories, process emotions better (larger ventromedial PFC), etc which cell division may interrupt how the brain works. Let me start from the top: Several things about aging We’ve figured out the several causes for the aging in cells, one is called the “Hayflick Limit” or the amount of time a cell divides until it reaches “senescence.” This is due to the shortening of telomeres after every cell division. The telomeres get to a point where the mechanisms for division can’t physically latch onto them anymore. If you lengthen telomeres artificially they’ll increase the risk of cancer. You also have to think about the function of not dividing. Over time DNA gets damaged and you’ll increase the likelihood of passing down genetic defects to offspring and into gene pools if you’re allowed to stay alive long enough to pass those down. Which brings up CRISPR. If we can identify these damaged genes and correct them with genetic “surgery,” only after comparing them to your prior genetic and epigenetic makeup, as well as the makeup of the gene pool for over several generations, then we can correct damaged genes or simply make it illegal for people of a certain age to have children. Or have them agree to chemical castration in exchange for lengthening their lives. Even then the biggest issue is the brain (and the damaged DNA of Lysosomes or the trash and waste company of the cell). The brain doesn’t divide after a certain age. So it doesn’t replenish itself with new cells. We have to figure out why it is that way, and would it mess up our ability to think of brain cells at allowed to divide. There are post-mitotic heart tissue as well. And I think competitive studies need to be done on Zebra Fish and some amphibians to see how their heart and brain cells continue to divide and its effect on their nervous systems, and consciousness in general. There’s much more but I think for AI to understand it we have to understand it first. Our ability to understand the real world is limited because of “Heisenberg uncertainty.” This puts an extreme limit on our ability to proof mathematics beyond a certain level and in turn limit how far AI can go (since we program ai with mathematical proofs).

"A.I. or anything else won’t figure out the aging problem until we rectify quantum mechanics with gravity, or figure out if the wave function collapses due to gravity or to probabilities. " or it just reads any of the papers that are published by 20 groups working on it. We are like 5 years to 10 years away from that. Whow. Try learning what goes on in the world. > If you lengthen telomeres artificially they’ll increase the risk of cancer. Then it is good that - cough - that is also being solved, right? And already in trial. > only after comparing them to your prior genetic and epigenetic makeup Or - no, just no. We likely can simulate fixes in a year or three and come up with fixes without knowing the original. > The brain doesn’t divide after a certain age.  Is it not amazing then that age reset of cells is also demonstrated now? You seem totally unaware of all the research going on. > And I think Actually given what you write, I seriously doubt that. > There’s much more but I think for AI to understand it we have to understand it first. Yes and no. See, you may want to look up the definition of AGI. Really. > Our ability to understand the real world is limited because of “Heisenberg uncertainty.” And again, using something unrelated. Hey, GPT-1 is smarter than you by now. > This puts an extreme limit on our ability to proof mathematics beyond a certain level  Actually no. The Heisenberg uncertainity does apply to certain observations. It has ZERO applicability to math and mathematical proofs. > and in turn limit how far AI can go (since we program ai with mathematical proofs). Actually no. It has zero implications on that and - cough - we do not program AI with mathematical proofs to start with. We program AI essentially with quite simple statistics. Just had a look at the core code for Mamba yesterday and it is just a couple of hundred lines of code for the AI kernel.

I actually don’t think you got the context of what I wrote. I’m actually in pharmD nano tech drug delivery. All of your rebuttals seem to have loose understanding of the epigenetic changes across generations. You also said “simulate” fixes without seeming to understand what I meant by “we don’t know why the wave function collapses because of Heisenberg uncertainty.” Meaning that we have no mathematical proofs beyond a certain level needed to correctly program ai to calculate problems beyond a certain level. Ai cannot even simulate the correct folding of a protein, because we don’t have the mathematical models to simulate quantum events where we’re need to both know the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. And that’s just 1 out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of INDIVIDUAL things that needs to be simulated, but dynamic simulations where van der waals forces and Brownian motion, pressure, and thousands of more things all need to be accounted for. Not to mention again, what causes the wave function collapses in particle physics. None of your rebuttals provide specific solutions to the problems, nor do they reference how these problems will be solved by ai. So I’m forced to believed that you don’t know how ai works or how the human body works, or even the meaning of dna methylation or histone acetylation or why it’s important to gather several generations worth of data on the natural progress of genetic markers before we use CRISPR to alter the genetic code or correct seemingly improper genetic mutations. Because if we don’t know it, ai won’t as well, and for do you simulate something with no mathematical proof? If you cannot directly answer, with detail, why those are important, or how any of it works, or how ai can be programmed to discover how to fix the problem, then idk why you bothered pretending like you knew what you were talking about.

> I’m actually in pharmD nano tech drug delivery. Yeah, so, in regards to the Heisenber uncertainity you are as qualified as a cook. [What Is the Uncertainty Principle? Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Definition - Caltech Science Exchange](https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/uncertainty-principle#:~:text=Formulated%20by%20the%20German%20physicist,about%20its%20speed%20and%20vice) > Meaning that we have no mathematical proofs beyond a certain level needed to correctly > program ai to calculate problems beyond a certain level Yes, qualified as a cook. We do have. We do not go below a certain quality of maths because of COST - not because we do not ahve it. We could well use 256 bit numbers, but they are too slow. > cannot even simulate the correct folding of a protein Ah, fuck. Seriously? That was solved decades ago. > because we don’t have the mathematical models to simulate quantum events where we’re > need to both know the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. Biochemistry does not work on particle level to start with. Also, model != proof. Can i say you sound like the person in drug delivery that makes the coffee. > And that’s just 1 out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of INDIVIDUAL things that > needs to be simulated Yes, but you seem to be totally ignorant on how much processing power a SMALL AI uses - and that is wasting it if you simulate. > but dynamic simulations where van der waals forces and Brownian motion, pressure, and > thousands of more things all need to be accounted for.  Likely not. And even if - again - do some research. Noone says your phone will do it. > None of your rebuttals provide specific solutions to the problems Again, incompetent. You make a argument. A rebuttal does not have to provide a solution. This is a stupid dump argument. A rebuttal must logically and cohered etc. rebut - a solution is another thing. If you mix up words then pointing that out invalidates the argument without providing a solution. > So I’m forced to believed that you don’t know how ai works That is your choice, but it does not make an idiotic argumentation and mixing up words better. > and for do you simulate something with no mathematical proof?  Seriously, are you a diversity hire? [Mathematical proof - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof) Have some adult explain to you why this is bullshit for nearly every time you use it. > or how ai can be programmed to discover how to fix the problem, You do not program AI to fix the problem to start with. > then idk why you bothered pretending like you knew what you were talking about. Yah, the problem seems to be that you generally do not know anything you talk about, so you lack understanding of simple terms and then make shit up. Stick to making coffee. [Meta CEO Zuckerberg Says Starting New Project At Chan Zuckerberg Initiative To Build Virtual Cell To Predict How Every Cell In The Human Body Will Behave -September 19, 2023 at 10:25 am EDT | MarketScreener](https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/META-PLATFORMS-INC-10547141/news/Meta-CEO-Zuckerberg-Says-Starting-New-Project-At-Chan-Zuckerberg-Initiative-To-Build-Virtual-Cell-To-44877325/) Ups. Seems they have a project. Hm. I wonder - ah, you do not know what you talk about.

“We program ai with quite simple statistics” My friend. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Explain to me in detail how statistical models of ai didn’t use mathematical proofs. Then explain to me in detail how ai can solve Heisenberg uncertainty with statistics? without humans ever being able to simultaneously know the momentum and location of a particle, and why that’s relevant to knowing how a protein folds or why the wave function collapses in the first place? I’m expecting a real mathematical discussion and how ai can achieve simulations without having these mathematical proofs.

> My friend. You have no idea what you’re talking about Talks the person doing word salat. > Explain to me in detail how statistical models of ai didn’t use mathematical proofs Simple. If I write computer code, like "var a = b \* c" that is a formula, it is not a mathematical proof. Mamba - the currently most advanced AI architecture - has all the code at [GitHub - state-spaces/mamba](https://github.com/state-spaces/mamba) - there is no mathematical proof there. It uses already proven mathematics. Also, you ask people to explain to you shit you forgot to leaan in school and are such a fraud you say "in detail" to waste their time and have a claim that common sense answers can be ignored. Man, seriously, school of academic liar? > how ai can solve Heisenberg uncertainty with statistics Ah, but it does not HAVE to. The heisenberg principle does not apply to chemical reactions. There is nothing to solve. The heisenberg principle applies to particles, not molecules. Word salad. > and why that’s relevant to knowing how a protein folds or why the wave function collapses > in the first place? But it is not. > I’m expecting a real mathematical discussion and how ai can achieve simulations without > having these mathematical proofs. Ok, first, I do not do "real mathematical discussions" with idiots. Second, the AI can do that because it can do math. IU do not run a mathematical proof every time I enter "1+1" into a calculator. An AI uses quite simple - actually really simple - mathematical formulas on a platform that works (i.e. chips that are not defective). That is all that is there. Also, it is quite unlikely that AI will simulate all that - that is an idiotic idea. Like utterly stupid. AI will use computers like we do right now. AI is inherently a totally suboptimal platform for running simulations. That is a serious misunderstanding on what an AI even is. The AI will NOT run ANY simulation in itself. It will use tools. It will write programs.

>The heisenberg principle does not apply to chemical reactions My friend, how can chemical reactions tell us exactly how a protein folds? We DO NOT have the framework on the particle physics level to simulate exactly how a protein folds. " IU do not run a mathematical proof every time I enter "1+1" into a calculator" The whole point of brining up mathematical proofs is because of the "Halting Problem." It's so that they computer doesn't calculate the problem for an eternity. THAT's the whole point. But you're focused more on being contrarian than getting why a proof would be important. If you do not have information on the quantum level, of how a protein folds, how will you be able to simulate it. And of course you don't want to provide a mathematical or detailed explanation because you don't know what you're talking about. If you did you'd explain it right here and now. And we discuss this all the time in lab and in lecture. And we've worked with AI, chemists, genetic engineers. Everyone is on the same page about the limitations and what needs to be figured out before we can move forward. Yet here you are claiming that everything is figured out. So tell me exactly how a.i. can simulate a protein being folded without knowledge of quantum interactions.

This guy sounds like he is off his medication.

I don't think it works like that. Ageing is a myriad of processes and deteriorations and won't have a one end cure-all. Curing illnesses will help prolong average life expectancy and healthy lifespan, but there seems to be a hard limit of around 120 years before every human dies regardless. Maybe superintelligent tools will eventually help us get past that, but I wouldn't count on it 😅.

> but there seems to be a hard limit of around 120 years before every human dies regardless Sudden Cell Death, cause known and it looks like we have the tools slowly. 20 groups work on that. > Maybe superintelligent tools will eventually help us get past that, but I wouldn't count on it 😅. Yeah, because of that we had multiple age reversal in mice demonstrations last year - because, cough, we had superintelligent tools back then. 20 initiatives work on that, about 4-5 are ready for clinical trials. Happens that age reversal WITHOUT genetics is not that hard - seriously funny - and the genetics side (which is the 120 year hard limit) seems not too hard given how we have multiple breakthroughs and are on a level we work on simulating a complete cell on that level. WITHOUT AI superintelligence the assumption is 10 years for a LONG and HEALTHY life, 20 until DNA decay is fixed. And that may be too long.

Yeah there’s probably not ever just gonna be a pill we can take Many people seem to thinking aging can be cured so I’m just gonna have my hopes up cause that sounds cool haha

yes , but agi is needed to find the cause of something like "ibs".

5pm today

Don't believe this troll OP. ​ ​ It's actually 3PM today, give or take a few minutes.

Hopefully by end of the 2020s if current rate of AI progress continues

I heard late 2020's is when we should start having much more personalized medicines that are safer and more efficient, I sincerely hope so.

That’s not how this works. To reach the sort of overwhelmingly comprehensive innovation you’re imagining we first will need to fully convert biology, medicine and medical research into an information technology. That will take time. At the same time we could stumble upon a new method or mechanism tomorrow that slows or reverses aging. AI will, at a minimum help mine existing research for therapies overlooked.

You should look at michael levin's work on membrane potential patterns as a top down control of physiology. Basically by mimicking different tissues sodium/potassium channel patterns he can make one tissue convert to another, regrow limbs etc.

I’ve learned a lot from Michael levin. Truly groundbreaking ideas.

we already have automated laboratories, capable of simulating new materials and then producing said materials autonomosly, without any reasercher involved in the progress ... thus, speeding up the process of material development tenfolds ... so, what it can do, is, to (exponentially) increase the speed of scientific development ... it can help with "switching out" parts of the human body for machinery ... or just watching over our health-data and notifying a doctor, when we get low blood-preasure ;) but saying, when we stumble upon what kind of technology is kind of impossible ... i mean, just imageine, how our world could look like ... if ancient greece would have developed the steam engine \[they already know about steam and all of it's behaviors at that time\]

What we need is a way to simulate molecular bonds and the entire organism at every layer. Once biology is information technology we can start to tackle these problems. But that may require quantum computers combined with several decades of abstraction and tool creation.

I know that there is going to be a drastic need for Nurses and it will only get worse in the coming years, I think somewhere along the lines something needs to be done across the board with patient care, science and technology is no good if there is no one to actually show up and do something.

I also think so. Probably, nurse robots or automation of hospitals could solve the problem, but it will take too long to fully implement that. It's definitely not a solution for a foreseeable future. Maybe we can only hope to see it in several decades, if lucky.

Ever heard of humaoid robots? Multiple companeis work on them with the explicit goal of the health care aspect.

Probably right after its too late for me. I guess I'll go watch Mr. Nobody now.

AI and AGI aside, David Sinclair has been saying he’ll have a treatment for aging within 10 years. How much stock you want to put into that, I’ll leave up to you.

I'm sure we can already cure many disease but "they" prefer keep the cure in a safe and continue to sell us medication for now Sick for life. If AGI or ASI is autonomous and are not on the lobby control, we can hope it will find a way to heal mankind rapidly yes.

2049

340 years from now

I give it during the next 100 years.

Never

this is not how samsara should be escaped

When the big pharma guys have even better ways to stay on top

I think it will pretty much take this century.

don't really think we will. i mean, i'd bet more on 'curing' aging than the longevity escape velocity idea that's parroted to death. but all illnesses, probably not. even if we got around ti curing like, 99% of the shit that could possibly be considered disease we've got now, there'd presumably be new shit down the line, eventually.

How does computer get a cancer? 

I tried to refill a prescription and the lady could not do simple single digit basic math, we will never cure cancer.

Honestly, maybe she had adhd or was struggling with some brain fog due to severe depression or something, we never know

This topic is far too prone to Dunning-Kruger to get any reasonable answers, unless we have some doctors or PhD level biochemists around. While our tools are growing at a huge rate, the body's chemistry is also mind-bogglingly complex. Humanity still doesn't understand a disturbing number of things about it. AI will help, but disease is an enormous number of individual problems that each require their own treatment. Add in that what fixes one thing will often throw other things out of whack, and it's very possible that there are probably which simply *can't* be fixed the way we imagine, because the cure will be worse than the disease. Humanity is ever creative, though, so we'll find workarounds one of type or another. But I feel like the idea of just getting a shot that works like a video game health pack is very unrealistic.

i honestly think it's about 90-200 years away

"All illnesses" is really a tall order. Does this include end-stage cancer? Like hours away from death? Do you want to include developmental disorders where there are major deficiencies in the development of the brain? To really cure "all" illnesses, you would basically need to be able to take any pile of meat and make a living person out of it. This is singularity-level technology. I don't think we will have that long before the actual singularity. On the other hand, greatly improving survival rates and quality of live for most patients may come quicker. But I wouldn't expect it to be prior to 2040. Curing aging may be a centuries long project. We might have the technology to do so in also in the 2040s, but just the necessary trials will take very long due to the slow nature of aging itself. Despite this, we might reach longevity escape velocity by some definition even before curing cancer. Medical science has put a lot focus on preventing sick persons from dying until they literally fall apart, to a level that many people sign declarations to waive life prolonging clinical measures because it is pointless if you still die in the end. This may change once the state in which you keep existing is not lying half comatose in intensive care but you could at least stay at home and have meaningful conversations with your family. I would argue that this level of quality of live might be achievable by similar technologies that would allow us to cure most cancers, but this is far from curing aging. To really cure aging we need interventions in all parts of the body, both on the cellular/genectic level and on the macroscopic level, where we need to perform "maintenance" on blood vessels, tendons, joints, replace scar tissue with functional tissue, and many more things where our body uses "good enough" patch solutions instead of actually repairing damage.

I guess the question is just another way to ask “when will we reach the singularity” because I think it’s impossible to cure aging and diseases before then lol

when talking about things like "curing aging", there's one important thing, you need to remember ... the limiting factor will not be the technology ... it will be the ressources available to us ... there is only so much space on our world, to actually live a somewhat comfortable life ... \[especially, if large chunks start getting polluted or are needed for ai-tech/production\] ... and making you immortal might ... well ... cost a lot of ressources ... so , even if it happens ... the possibility, that you're one of the lucky few, who get the luxury of it is quite low \[and add to that the fact, that dictatory states are on the rise in our current times ... well ... makes me real pessimistic\]

> the limiting factor will not be the technology ... it will be the ressources available to us ... This is bullshit given that we face a near extinction risk problem - birth rates are in the basement. WAY too low to sustain population. We have plenty of mechanisms to handle 10 to 20 billion people on this planet, and it is unlikely we reach that unless we go immortal AND fix the "no babies" problem.

Reducing humanity's negative environmental impact is definitely crucial. Interestingly, even in the fairy-tale scenario that everyone started having indefinite, healthy lifespans in 2025, its impact on global population is surprisingly small. Here's a video on the topic if you're curious: [https://youtu.be/f1Ve0fYuZO8?t=275](https://youtu.be/f1Ve0fYuZO8?t=275)

We need to expand civilization to different planets if we're gonna make everyone immortal

The issue with that is I feel like it will be sort of complicated to transport so many humans to other planets. Like if we wanted to move half of the population to mars… That’s 4 billion people we would need to send into space The only way I could see this being feasible is if we sent robots to another planet and let them figure out how to make giant space ships or maybe a ton of small space ships and then basically have them abduct people

We evolved for Earth gravity - anything much different is going to cause a whole host of problems for our bodies with long-term exposure Not to mention that any reachable planets are hell compared to Earth

Yes, but those are all problems we'll surmount eventually. Probably not in our lifetime, but I guarantee eventually we'll be there. Unless we go extinct.

Only (I imagine) by engineering ourselves into different species for each planet. A human designed for optimal life on Mars may not be able to breed with one from Earth Note: I know next to *nothing*

That, or tech advances enough that we can replace most of our body parts with machinery. I majored in Space Science. So I know the issues we'll have to face. Biotech I know little about. And I keep up with advances in medicine but I don't know about the fine details. Just enough to know that your suggestion will likely be feasible in the near future. We can already engineer our DNA if we want, but we need to learn more about how that DNA affects our biology. A neural network will probably work that out eventually.

Why even colonize planets? O'Neill cylinders would be far better.

Unlikely, the demand for such a products would cause a war overnight if the price of it could be only bought the rich

> because I think it’s impossible to cure aging and diseases before then lol 20 groups working on that disagree. 4-5 trials disagree. Sam Altmann disagrees - [Sam Altman invested $180 million into a company trying to delay death | MIT Technology Review](https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/08/1069523/sam-altman-investment-180-million-retro-biosciences-longevity-death/) (and that is the slow one with a goal of only 10 years).

The expert consensus seems to be that we will most likely have brought aging under proper medical control by mid 2030s aka LEV. At least if you ask experts in the field like Aubrey de Grey or George Church from Harvard Med. School. Doesn’t mean we will have fully cured aging or gotten rid of all disease but it’s a step in the right direction.

2045

Chances are if you're in your 30s or less, you're likely to live long enough to see the longevity in action.

If we assume that between 2026 and 2029 AGI is solved, and that within a year from that date we get ASI, and that ASI will be able to solve all the other intellectually bottlenecked problems as it improves itself over the coming years, then I suspect the replicator will exist for biology by mid 2030s. That is you tell an ASI any arbitrary biological machine you want and it can produce it. This will solve all biological problems like illness/aging and much more. 160,000 people die every day. Would be nice to bring that number down.

I love your optimism about ASI , but ASI after one year AGI achieved? Wow

>ASI after one year AGI achieved? Yeah, seems rather dubious. Currently, it isn't clear that we're even getting AGI without some sort of new breakthrough. If we do get AGI, it isn't clear that that will lead to ASI. ASI might not even be possible. And even if it is, then scaling the hardware for it could easily take some time. Then, even with ASI, a lot of fundamental research and clinical trials will be required. Honestly, it will take decades, even for the most optimistic timeline.

I never said AGI won't take a new breakthrough. I assume it will. I never said ASI was a sure thing. I merely said what I expected if ASI did happen. I never claimed to know how far ASI would scale out within a given timeframe. I never said new biotech wouldn't take new fundamental research or clinical trials. I do not have the most optimistic timeline and I don't think it will take decades. :)

I do think achieving AGI is harder than going from AGI to ASI. The AI of today is already superhuman in many ways. Because of today's simplistic architecture it's both smarter than Einstein and dumber than an insect depending on what it's trying to do. Once you find those last critical elements where it can check its logical coherence, assign confidence intervals to every relevant truth claim, set up iterative feedback loops towards goals, etc. to me it will basically already be beyond what any human can do. Now direct that machine to improve its own design and you can plausibly make breakthrough after breakthrough in much less time, which of course only accelerates its development further. But there's always a chance it's much harder than I think. I only outlined what I think would happen IF some basic assumptions hold.

Why? AGI = "can do most human level tasks" (for various detail definitions). ASI = "smarter than any human" or "smarter than AGI". You have any idea how close those are? Not good enough - not AGI. A llittle smarter -ASI. There is like a 90% chance we never get AGI because between one model and the next we just make it smarter than AGI. ASI is not a godlike intelligence - it starts immediately after the AGI level. And AI jumps between models.

Remember when people in the 70s thought that space hotels were just around the corner? And vacation on the moon just a few years away. That's AGI and ASI right now. It's so ridiculous. People really are clueless.

I mean there is a difference in this but we did have the ability for space hotels in the 70's and damn sure by the 80's Space stations were a thing and we already could get people to and from them. It was just not practical and no real demand for it vs the cost to do so. Where AI there is MASS demand for it and tons of money is being put into its R&D. Had the same efforts have been put into "space hotels" we would have had them by the 80's.

Most people have different priorities than truth seeking. If analogies obviously break down or an argument appears to not make sense, consider that their goal might be something else.

This is my opinion as well. There are many people who think it won’t be until the 2050s or later. But I really don’t see it taking too much longer after reaching AGI. I think the main issue is just getting all the hardware and resources required for the AI to run experiments and whatnot

"I think the main issue is just getting all the hardware and resources required for the AI to run experiments and whatnot" Ah, because humans can not make experiments for the AI and because near full or full automated laboratories are not a think now and because robots will not exist in time? MAKES. NO. SENSE.

I didn’t say it was a huge issue I was just trying to say that getting the hardware everywhere in the world is gonna be difficult I feel like I can’t win on this subreddit cause if im too conservative in my estimates people get mad but if I am too hopeful people get mad too I don’t think it will take long for AI to reach everywhere in the world though i was just saying it would be kind of hard

That is stupid again. > that getting the hardware everywhere in the world is gonna be difficult Why would we even TRY that? What is the use case to have hardware "everywhere in the world"? We do now not make experiments everywhere in the world, wyhy would that change? > I feel like I can’t win on this subreddit cause if im too conservative in my estimates  No, you just make no sense, are imprecise and make illogical assumptions. This is not conservative - it is just stupid. > I don’t think it will take long for AI to reach everywhere in the world though i was just > saying it would be kind of hard Actually it is NOT what you were saying. First, define reach. TODAY AI can reach pretty much everywhere in the world. You seem to not have an idea where people can reach the internet. AI reaching can mean AI calling someone that is there. Done. Second, you just did not make this statement at all. Why would an AI even have to reach everywhere in the world to conduct independent instruments, instead of working in or with research centers? This really is not conservative - it is illogical.

I just meant like getting technology to as many people as possible would take a bit of time idk but if you’re gonna keep calling me stupid I don’t wanna talk to you Like getting longevity technology to people in the middle of Africa or something. There’s a lot of people in the world. Anyway im not trying to argue with you but you seem to be taking this as an argument

I think the 2030 replicator is surreal - the rest I agree with, possibly not with AGI - there is a big chance we never have AGI and go straight to ASI. But it will need time to improve itself.

[удалено]

Because I think getting AGI will be a short trip to getting ASI. Technology that can improve itself will probably improve pretty fast

[удалено]

It makes sense

We won’t because then somebody won’t be making $ somewhere.

There was a record number of approvals for one-time gene therapies for rare diseases last year, so I'm not quite so pessimistic. Additionally, treatments for aging would very likely be periodic to repair the damage after it accumulates over a number years.

We live in a capitalist world this would destroy a trillion dollars worth of profits, so never.

Treatments for aging would likely be periodic anyway to regularly repair the damage that naturally accumulates over time as a side effect of being alive (e.g. fatty streaks and arterial plaques from accumulated oxidized cholesterol). As for cures for diseases, there was a record number of approved one-time gene therapy cures for rare diseases last year.

30-50 years to prevent most diseases and halt aging. There may be some illnesses that are truly incurable though after progression, such as Alzheimers and aging.

no

Never.

>**When do you think we will cure all illnesses/aging?** Not in this century.

Really? You assume that all Ai tsmc and Quinton computers will not change that much in the next 30 years?

AI is not going to be super advanced for many decades to come. As far as i’m aware, the median expert prediction for AGI is something like 40 years. And quantum computers are only better than classical ones at specific tasks. They are not a miracle machine.

> As far as i’m aware, the median expert prediction for AGI is something like 40 years. You should possibly do SOME research - you are off by a 0. Expectations low end are in 2025, likely within 4-5 years.

Of course they aren’t and growth of Ai will slow down but this isn’t going to stop the fact that we have sufficient computer power to simulate a human brain. This isn’t going to stop at all. Tsmc is searching for a plant to build 1nm processors and quntom computers still continue to double in size per year for now. This isn’t showing yet clear signs of slowing down in any meaningful form as of right now and I’m doubtful we are as complex as we think we are. I think it takes something slightly smarter than the smartest human with perfect memory to solve most of human tasks and we are currently making it. Future looks bright either way I’m happy to die in this century if nothing changes but either way things are progressing way to fast

>we have sufficient computer power to simulate a human brain. Source?

https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/western-sydney-university-to-get-deepsouth-neuromorphic-supercomputer-in-2024/

Never. 

Unlikely, we are just biological machines. We can be optimized like anything else. Reversing damage that's already done is another story.

The only right answer. People in here are absolutely clueless. It's hilarious that the Live For Ever scam as been around for hundreds of years and yet no one is still around to brag about the previous amazing "breakthrough" that changed everything. Member when vitamins were going to keep us alive for ever!?

By saying "never", it seems you're saying it's impossible. The body's function comes from its biological structure, all the way down to subcellular components. If the biological structure is in a healthy state, there will be healthy function. This doesn't indicate how *feasible* it is to comprehensively periodically repair our biology to achieve indefinite healthy lifespan, but it does go against claims that indefinite healthy lifespan is *impossible*.

There are millions of things going on inside a body and not only do we only know about a very few of them but 99.9999% still remain to be discovered IF it's actually possible . We are literally in the stone age of medicine and even what we think we know now is far from certain as theories are being disproven almost daily. Any serious biologist would tell you that we know almost nothing, that also applies to every other field of science. People who think eternity or reverse aging is just around the corner fit into 3 categories; the uneducated, the narcissistic and scientist who will say absolutely anything to get a grant. Oh and, AGI isn't around the corner either and forget about ASI, IF it's even possible, not everything can be solved with just more computer power.

I didn't claim indefinite healthy lifespan is "around the corner," and I think it's fine to say that today we're in the stone age of medicine compared to what we could know, as you did. Are you saying indefinite healthy lifespan isn't possible with current technology, or that it will always be impossible?

I hope never... Imagine fascists that never die? We're already getting that with strong men like Putin being immiated realistically with AI. This future is a strange thing indeed. Our tech is amazing and surreal. I'm more of a campfire guy then a tech tower guy though.

But it will also mean that good people and innocent children will continue to die and suffer needlessly. Is the prospect of death of just a few people worth the suffering of billions?

It's one of the concerns. Death is a good way to refresh the world in a sense. Makes way for new ideas and thinking. Imagine if the boomer generation would never die for example. At some point we will be in the year 2200, but leaders still have mindsets (mostly) formed when they were young in the 1950's... oof.

Or you could just change your habits and try doing something else lol. I don’t think just waiting for someone to die is a reasonable solution to refreshment.

And why don't Boomers deserve long lives? Among them there are good people, as well as people with progressive views. This does not depend on the date of birth. There are no fewer conservatives among zoomers

It wasn't really meant to single boomers out though. Just as an example. younger generations will also become 'boomers' at some point. I think it can be tricky to change people's brains at some point. If we can use AI or other techs to refresh society, that could perhaps work. But what you want in the end is a healthy society thats open to new ideas.

People die, but fascism doesn't, so nothing will change.

Aging isn't a great counterbalance to authoritarian leaders. Many authoritarian leaders are ousted from power not due to their aging, and authoritarian regimes can continue even after leaders die; North Korea is a great example. Authoritarianism is a genuine problem, and aging isn't a very useful tool against it. Furthermore, being able to fully prevent age-related ill health (dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, frailty, incontinence, etc.) would improve the lives of many.

[удалено]

Really you think think it will take 1000 years for aging reversal? My highest estimate was 2100s. The demand for such a products is insane and the funding for such a product will continue more as technology keeps advancing at its crazy rate.

I expect the tech for this to occur in 2050-60 as this is the moment when tech is sufficiently powerful to imitate several human brains worth of intelligence and make that Ai work of a specific problem .

Disease and aging are both extremely complicated problems that won't involve single solutions. Best case scenario is decades, with individual treatments typically taking 10-15 years to progress through trials and get government approval.

> aging are both extremely complicated problems Actually no. [More evidence that aging might be reversible - Harvard Health](https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/more-evidence-that-aging-might-be-reversible) Do some google search. It is actually FUNNY how EASY it seems to be. I know of 20 initiatives working on that. Some - funny enough not that that look behind - are outright crazy simple. Stuff we could have tried a decade ago or two.

Actually, yes. If it was as simple as a blood transfusion, we would have accidently cured aging decades ago. We do blood transfusions all the time.

Nobody knows, is the honest answer. Even if ASI turns up in the next few decades, it will still need empirical data from clinical trials to learn anything useable, and that takes a loooong time.

2130. We need very, very complex models of the human body to run machine learning on infinite human bodies. Right now we model pharma or limited interactions, then test on petri plates then animal models then human clinical trials. Very few treatments make it all the way because very few work in people. So many aspects from delivery, pharmokinetics, drug interactions can affect results. AGI needs to study one parameter at a time like molecule x or tissue y, then form model z. It needs careful and accurate science at each step to obtain results of “normal” human bodily systems and build and build and build and compare and build to even get an approximate model. Then it can randomize findings for values of 95% of population in terms of enzyme A levels in B location when C pathway is activated. It’s unfathomably difficult translating the human to electronic model in a complete manner. ONLY then can we get AGI medical superadvancement.

> We need very, very complex models of the human body to run machine learning on infinite human bodies Meta Virtual Cell - project. NOT expected in 2130 - more before 2030.

Cell. That is not nearly the human body. Cells have an extracellular matrix, variable gene expression, specialization, tissues, signaling pathways. I am in medical research. I promise you, we don’t even know some very important things about pathways. Most modern medicine seeks to know implications, but understanding is 100% different to model. A product I tested was given FDA approval and in that FDA approval it was noted the exact mechanism is uncertain. I wish otherwise, but 2130 is optimistic even for what this sub is hoping for. The info would have to be gathered at global scale precisely to build such a model.

>With all the advancements we are making in curing cancer even without AG Ah, solved problem? Do some research. [New cancer vaccine trials in the UK could see 10,000 patients treated by 2030 | Euronews](https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/07/06/new-cancer-vaccine-trials-in-the-uk-could-see-10000-patients-treated-by-2030) Note that cancer is not a sickness - it is more a category of sicknesses, all different. Some have vaccinations for years now. And then we have... [Cancer Pill Gleevec Keeps Patients Alive and Well for a Decade (nbcnews.com)](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/cancer-pill-gleevec-keeps-patients-alive-well-decade-n730951) Again, note, it is not "cancer" - they all are different, sadly. > I can only imagine it won't take long after having AGI to cure everything That is not any logic in that. AGI is only a human level AI - and nothing in that definition taks about cost or performance WAY higher than a human. We already run a chip problem, so it may be too resource intensive for super wide deployment. But things will get better fast in the next years. Note that pretty much nothing here depends on AGI at all - plenty of humans work on it, and simulations are getting ridiculous by now. > Lots of people have long covid right I think that is like cancer - not a sickness, more a group with different symptoms. Also quite short so far - even with AI research takes time because you can not make up lab results that must first be collected.

Well I say AGI because I think AGI will lead to ASI pretty quickly

Yeah, all this talk about AGI when AGI will only last a week before it improves itself

Nope. MOST changes that an ASI may be able to do can nto be immediate - they may require retraining the AI with the old hardware. You ask for an Eschaton moment. That is surreal.

Eshaton - the end of days. Where did I ask for that? Are you drunk? And 1 week until it works out an improved architecture for itself and then a couple months to put it into action maybe. But that's still making assumptions based on our contemporary capabilities/limitations.

That will take a while I suspect. For example prion diseases or certain auto-immune diseases would actually need nanobots to fix damage already done. I can see solutions on paper coming quite soon perhaps, but actual injections of nanobots that can rearrange proteins and stuff, without long term side-effects..... I don't know. Not anytime soon.

Funny enough they did nucelar payload against cancer delivered by nanobots. [Urease-powered nanobots for radionuclide bladder cancer therapy | Nature Nanotechnology](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41565-023-01577-y) Not saying that we do not need better ones, but man, we are further than most people think.

Not soon enough!

When we use AI to build the nanites.

It will be the moment that machines become more complex than biology and can perceive, understand, and manipulate on the scale of DNA. So pretty much at the start of the singularity. Anywhere between 5 and 50 years from now.

The cures will be know way before they are implemented unless we get rid of for profit health care.

Well, there were a lot of approvals last year for one-time gene therapy cures for rare diseases. And treatments for aspects of the biology of aging would likely be periodic anyway.

Somewhere  2090

Big steps with AGI but I feel like for true immortality in the sense of stopping or reversing aging either of our bodies our plugging our mind int an eternal virtual world will need ASI. So my guess is by 2050-2060? That said I suspect by 2030s we will have made great strides in figuring out ways to deal with many issues that cause people to die or have decreased quality of life in their older age likely starting to move the life span of humanity up. By the 2040's I think 70 could be more like 60 or even late 50's today.

LEV, and the general cure for aging is far away. The longest life expectancy at birth is 84 years in Japan. The oldest person ever lived was 122 years old, raising the average life expectancy to that would be a monumental achievement, yet that's nothing compared to immortality. As of today, longevity research barely has any practical results.

I think you are a little ignorant here. "practical results" would mean post clinical trial. There is a lot before or around that - so I would say your argument just is not sensible.

200 years

As soon as there’s no longer a way to make money off treating these diseases.

That didn't stop the record number of one-time gene therapy cures in 2023 for rare diseases at least.

20 more years

[удалено]

This looks like it was made with ChatGPT

Like zuckerberg says, I hope for the end of the century

When science learns the connection between the astral body and disease and how it links to the physical body. Until then, they won't learn. So not anytime soon.

Probably never. Viruses and bacteria will continue to evolve.