For topics like this, I recommend making use of a unit called “quality-adjusted years of life.” We can never ultimately reduce instances of death except by reducing the birth rate or breaking the second law of thermodynamics.
Viewing things this way is useful because we can see that, for example, artificial hearts should be weighted less per “life saved” than self-driving cars because they target an older population, and so they result in fewer extra years of life.
Also, I think robotic surgery that’s better than human surgery might be close to as hard as just building a general AI, so probably better to focus on that.
For topics like this, I recommend making use of a unit called “quality-adjusted years of life.” We can never ultimately reduce instances of death except by reducing the birth rate or breaking the second law of thermodynamics.
Where the limitation from laws of thermodynamics is a relevant idea, quality-adjusted years of life isn’t.
Also, I think robotic surgery that’s better than human surgery might be close to as hard as just building a general AI, so probably better to focus on that.
I think one kind of better is relatively easy and the other is close to GAI.
Robot surgeons which avoid the human mistakes which occur due to tiredness and distraction would be relatively straightforward.
Robot surgeons which are better than human surgeons at handling unusual problems—especially if you want them to be better than the best human surgeons—strike me as GAI territory.
I’m concerned that robot surgeons could mean that less knowledge would be accumulated because they’d be less likely to notice anomalies and possible improvements to existing procedures.
I’m concerned that robot surgeons could mean that less knowledge would be accumulated because they’d be less likely to notice anomalies and possible improvements to existing procedures.
Moderately high IQ humans are a valuable resources, there are plenty of things that simply aren’t being done because humans prefer the high status profession of “surgeon” or “doctor”. Reducing their numbers while maintaining the same quality of service would be a great boon.
I agree that self-driving cars should be weighted higher than artificial hearts per life saved, but the number of lives (assuming we don’t count the indirect economic effects of self-driving cars) could be quite a bit greater given that such a high percentage of deaths are heart-related.
The fact that they target an older population is slightly less of a factor if we consider that old age hits a mortality plateau, and assuming that this plateau rate can be reduced by such interventions. (Stroke, dementia, cancer, and so forth would definitely become higher priorities at this point.) Also the fact that the intervention occurs later in life (and hence later in time) increases the probability that it will serve as a bridge to robust rejuvenation or to more effective cryonics.
Currently, robotic surgery is teleoperated by humans. With software that learns from human interaction, automated surgery could probably be developed, starting with the most predictable operations and working towards more complex ones. It would never have to be human-level or general, narrow AI that is good at surgery should be sufficient.
For topics like this, I recommend making use of a unit called “quality-adjusted years of life.” We can never ultimately reduce instances of death except by reducing the birth rate or breaking the second law of thermodynamics.
Viewing things this way is useful because we can see that, for example, artificial hearts should be weighted less per “life saved” than self-driving cars because they target an older population, and so they result in fewer extra years of life.
Also, I think robotic surgery that’s better than human surgery might be close to as hard as just building a general AI, so probably better to focus on that.
Where the limitation from laws of thermodynamics is a relevant idea, quality-adjusted years of life isn’t.
If you allow quality to be greater than 1, it might be. Computation becomes uncertain, though.
I think one kind of better is relatively easy and the other is close to GAI.
Robot surgeons which avoid the human mistakes which occur due to tiredness and distraction would be relatively straightforward.
Robot surgeons which are better than human surgeons at handling unusual problems—especially if you want them to be better than the best human surgeons—strike me as GAI territory.
I’m concerned that robot surgeons could mean that less knowledge would be accumulated because they’d be less likely to notice anomalies and possible improvements to existing procedures.
Moderately high IQ humans are a valuable resources, there are plenty of things that simply aren’t being done because humans prefer the high status profession of “surgeon” or “doctor”. Reducing their numbers while maintaining the same quality of service would be a great boon.
I agree that self-driving cars should be weighted higher than artificial hearts per life saved, but the number of lives (assuming we don’t count the indirect economic effects of self-driving cars) could be quite a bit greater given that such a high percentage of deaths are heart-related.
The fact that they target an older population is slightly less of a factor if we consider that old age hits a mortality plateau, and assuming that this plateau rate can be reduced by such interventions. (Stroke, dementia, cancer, and so forth would definitely become higher priorities at this point.) Also the fact that the intervention occurs later in life (and hence later in time) increases the probability that it will serve as a bridge to robust rejuvenation or to more effective cryonics.
Currently, robotic surgery is teleoperated by humans. With software that learns from human interaction, automated surgery could probably be developed, starting with the most predictable operations and working towards more complex ones. It would never have to be human-level or general, narrow AI that is good at surgery should be sufficient.