There is no evidence that anti-aging is psychologically what’s driving the AI race, and humanity is not showing any inclination to prioritize anti-aging anyway.
If you want a reason to think that AI could end up human-aligned anyway, without a ban or a pause or even a consensus that caution is appropriate, I suggest the perspective of getting early AI to help us “do our alignment homework”.
If solving alignment requires several genius-level insights: somewhere on the path between no AI and superintelligent AI, is a moment where computers can perform genius-level cognition at AI speeds. That moment would represent a chance of solving alignment with the assistance of early AI.
>There is no evidence that anti-aging is psychologically what’s driving the AI race
Sure. As I’ve said, I’m just speculating. I think it’s extremely hard to get evidence for this, since people don’t talk openly about it. Those of us who admit publicly that we want to live forever (or indefinitely long) are excepcional cases. Even most people working in longevity will tell you that they don’t care about increasing our lifespan, that they just want us to be healthier. Sam Altman will tell the media that he has no interest in living forever, that he just wants to “add 10 years of healthspan” (cause that’s the moderate thing to say)… and then sign up with Nectome for mind-uploading. I think actions speak louder than words.
The immortality/radical life extension/living forever/not dying topic is extremely taboo, and most people will keep dancing around it. Heck, a lot of them will tell you that they would never want to live forever while symultaneously believing in religions that promise them eternal life. There are no limits to the cognitive dissonance that people are willing to embrace regarding this topic.
There is no evidence that anti-aging is psychologically what’s driving the AI race, and humanity is not showing any inclination to prioritize anti-aging anyway.
If you want a reason to think that AI could end up human-aligned anyway, without a ban or a pause or even a consensus that caution is appropriate, I suggest the perspective of getting early AI to help us “do our alignment homework”.
If solving alignment requires several genius-level insights: somewhere on the path between no AI and superintelligent AI, is a moment where computers can perform genius-level cognition at AI speeds. That moment would represent a chance of solving alignment with the assistance of early AI.
>There is no evidence that anti-aging is psychologically what’s driving the AI race
Sure. As I’ve said, I’m just speculating. I think it’s extremely hard to get evidence for this, since people don’t talk openly about it. Those of us who admit publicly that we want to live forever (or indefinitely long) are excepcional cases. Even most people working in longevity will tell you that they don’t care about increasing our lifespan, that they just want us to be healthier. Sam Altman will tell the media that he has no interest in living forever, that he just wants to “add 10 years of healthspan” (cause that’s the moderate thing to say)… and then sign up with Nectome for mind-uploading. I think actions speak louder than words.
The immortality/radical life extension/living forever/not dying topic is extremely taboo, and most people will keep dancing around it. Heck, a lot of them will tell you that they would never want to live forever while symultaneously believing in religions that promise them eternal life. There are no limits to the cognitive dissonance that people are willing to embrace regarding this topic.
So no, I don’t have evidence to back up my claim.