Most longevity researchers will still be super-skeptical if you say AGI is going to solve LEV in our lifetimes (one could say—a la Structure of Scientific Revolutions logic—that most of them have a blindspot for recent AGI progress—but AGI=>LEV is still handwavy logic)
Last year’s developments were fast enough for me to be somewhat more relaxed on this issue… (however, there is still slowing core aging rate/neuroplasticity loss down, which acts on shorter timelines, and still important if you want to do your best work)
Another thing to bear in mind is optimal trajectory to human immortality vs expected profit maximizing path for AI corps At some point, likely very soon, we’ll have powerful enough AI to solve ageing, which then makes further acceleration very -ve utility for humans
I don’t know whether to believe, but it’s a reasonable take...
“10% is overconfident”, given huge uncertainty over AGI takeoff (especially the geopolitical landscape of it), and especially given the probability that AGI development may be somehow slowed (https://twitter.com/jachaseyoung/status/1723325057056010680 )
Most longevity researchers will still be super-skeptical if you say AGI is going to solve LEV in our lifetimes (one could say—a la Structure of Scientific Revolutions logic—that most of them have a blindspot for recent AGI progress—but AGI=>LEV is still handwavy logic)
Last year’s developments were fast enough for me to be somewhat more relaxed on this issue… (however, there is still slowing core aging rate/neuroplasticity loss down, which acts on shorter timelines, and still important if you want to do your best work)
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3A%40RokoMijic%20immortality&src=typed_query
I don’t know whether to believe, but it’s a reasonable take...