“Why not both?” If you have spent any time reading anti-aging & AGI literature, it’s clear that there is minimal funging: just not much overlap of funders, researchers, or hobbyists. Most of the people doing anti-aging research have little interest in AI and vice-versa, even if there are many people who are interested in both, they represent only a small fraction of the people interested in just one. Most of the money not spent on anti-aging won’t go to AGI safety but something else entirely, and vice-versa.
And if all the AI stuff ultimately whimpers out, as is still entirely possible, then you will be very glad that anti-aging research continued. Biology research tends to not be amenable to “throw lots of money at it at the last minute”.
just not much overlap of funders, researchers, or hobbyists
I feel like there is some? Like, I’m in the overlap, kind of, Nick Bostrom wrote The Fable of the Dragon Tyrant, cryonics / brain preservation is kind of like anti-aging, and so on.
There is some, but I think we greatly overestimate it in these circles. Go over to, like, Longecity or /r/longevity, or read comments to David Sinclair stuff. If you were to judge by LW comments, you might think that the funging factor is, like, >90%. “Obviously pretty much everyone concerned about AGI is also concerned about aging and vice-versa! Certainly everyone I know seems to be! How could you not be?!” Whereas I think it’s closer to, say, <10%. Either concern has a very low base-rate, so despite the enrichment, you still wind up with by far the absolute majority of people in AGI not being all that interested in anti-aging and vice-versa—such that if one area were zeroed out, it would barely improve funding or participation in the other. AGI people wouldn’t go work on anti-aging, they’d go work on, I dunno, cryptocurrency.
“Why not both?” If you have spent any time reading anti-aging & AGI literature, it’s clear that there is minimal funging: just not much overlap of funders, researchers, or hobbyists. Most of the people doing anti-aging research have little interest in AI and vice-versa, even if there are many people who are interested in both, they represent only a small fraction of the people interested in just one. Most of the money not spent on anti-aging won’t go to AGI safety but something else entirely, and vice-versa.
And if all the AI stuff ultimately whimpers out, as is still entirely possible, then you will be very glad that anti-aging research continued. Biology research tends to not be amenable to “throw lots of money at it at the last minute”.
I feel like there is some? Like, I’m in the overlap, kind of, Nick Bostrom wrote The Fable of the Dragon Tyrant, cryonics / brain preservation is kind of like anti-aging, and so on.
There is some, but I think we greatly overestimate it in these circles. Go over to, like, Longecity or /r/longevity, or read comments to David Sinclair stuff. If you were to judge by LW comments, you might think that the funging factor is, like, >90%. “Obviously pretty much everyone concerned about AGI is also concerned about aging and vice-versa! Certainly everyone I know seems to be! How could you not be?!” Whereas I think it’s closer to, say, <10%. Either concern has a very low base-rate, so despite the enrichment, you still wind up with by far the absolute majority of people in AGI not being all that interested in anti-aging and vice-versa—such that if one area were zeroed out, it would barely improve funding or participation in the other. AGI people wouldn’t go work on anti-aging, they’d go work on, I dunno, cryptocurrency.
Oh, yeah, sorry; I don’t believe the “and vice-versa” bit and if that’s what you’re pointing out, I agree.