There is a hope that medical technology, accelerated via a Singularity, will advance to the point where we have full mastery over biology and can economically repair organ and cellular damage faster than aging accumulates it. There is sufficient evidence to put a reasonable bet on that happening by mid-century.
Downvoted for Kurzweilian faith and weasely wording of prediction.
It is not Kurzweil, it is rather Aubrey De Grey’s pretty good execution of a “weak inside view” analysis. Longevity escape velocity, as he calls it. I have my own minor complaint about the “accelerated via the a Singularity” part, which is markedly not part of De Grey’s analysis (assuming that the OP really wrote the above paragraph with De Grey in mind and not someone else).
Yes I was hinting at longevity escape velocity, which doesn’t depend on a Singularity per se, but a Singularity—meaning a vast increase in effective intelligence and computation—undoubtedly has a high probability of achieving longevity escape velocity, amongst other things.
I happen to believe the odds of achieving that escape velocity anytime soon without a vast increase in effective intelligence and computation are very low.
Ahh I can see why you might take objection to that—Singularity can be a vague term. Nonetheless, it does describe a range of future scenarios which I do believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant as quite possible, without considering specifics—it’s actually good in this case to use a term that wraps a diverse set of related futures together.
Is the ′ probable, mid-century’ part what you are dismissing as Kurzweilian faith? If so, I’m in agreement. (Along much the same lines as we discussed with respect to HP:MoR.)
Umm I actually I didn’t use the word ‘probable’ - I said “reasonable bet”. Do you think this justifies the term “Kurzweilian faith and weasely wording”?
In terms of expected benefits, even with low odds the Singularity can be a good bet that one should take into consideration in any future projections. I think it is irrational not to consider it.
Belief that a Singularity is extremely unlikely this century is just another belief in a set of future scenarios that one could assign the adjective ‘faith’ to.
Downvoted for Kurzweilian faith and weasely wording of prediction.
It is not Kurzweil, it is rather Aubrey De Grey’s pretty good execution of a “weak inside view” analysis. Longevity escape velocity, as he calls it. I have my own minor complaint about the “accelerated via the a Singularity” part, which is markedly not part of De Grey’s analysis (assuming that the OP really wrote the above paragraph with De Grey in mind and not someone else).
Yes I was hinting at longevity escape velocity, which doesn’t depend on a Singularity per se, but a Singularity—meaning a vast increase in effective intelligence and computation—undoubtedly has a high probability of achieving longevity escape velocity, amongst other things.
I happen to believe the odds of achieving that escape velocity anytime soon without a vast increase in effective intelligence and computation are very low.
That.
Ahh I can see why you might take objection to that—Singularity can be a vague term. Nonetheless, it does describe a range of future scenarios which I do believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant as quite possible, without considering specifics—it’s actually good in this case to use a term that wraps a diverse set of related futures together.
I wouldn’t have used it, because the term “singularity” makes me think of a sign saying “STOP: No humans beyond this point.”
How do you get “Kurzweilian faith” out of “reasonable bet”?
Is the ′ probable, mid-century’ part what you are dismissing as Kurzweilian faith? If so, I’m in agreement. (Along much the same lines as we discussed with respect to HP:MoR.)
Umm I actually I didn’t use the word ‘probable’ - I said “reasonable bet”. Do you think this justifies the term “Kurzweilian faith and weasely wording”?
In terms of expected benefits, even with low odds the Singularity can be a good bet that one should take into consideration in any future projections. I think it is irrational not to consider it.
Belief that a Singularity is extremely unlikely this century is just another belief in a set of future scenarios that one could assign the adjective ‘faith’ to.
Full agreement and retraction!
Can’t we just say “please don’t use the term singularity so casually” instead of downvoting?