I may argue against the anti aging field (and probably now that i reflect about it, it seems more important than most non-essential productivity in society) that it is highly more probable that we reach an agi singularity during our lifetimes, before we die of aging. (depends on your age). What do you think?
“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.
The probability of dying of aging is 100%. The probability of dying of AGI is less than 100%. The probability of the development of anti-aging tech via non-AGI means is close to 100% (e.g., senolytics). The probability of the development of anti-aging tech via AGI is not close to 100%. Therefore, some of us prefer to focus more on aging than AGI.
Sure, I could have added the caveat “if you don’t die of anything else first (and most people won’t),” but I wanted to keep the caveats to a minimum. Perhaps a general caveat would be that these statements should be understood to apply to most people alive today. About two thirds of deaths are caused by aging (100k out of 150k per day) and in the developed world, it’s 90%.
I may argue against the anti aging field (and probably now that i reflect about it, it seems more important than most non-essential productivity in society) that it is highly more probable that we reach an agi singularity during our lifetimes, before we die of aging. (depends on your age).
What do you think?
“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.
The probability of dying of aging is 100%.
The probability of dying of AGI is less than 100%.
The probability of the development of anti-aging tech via non-AGI means is close to 100% (e.g., senolytics).
The probability of the development of anti-aging tech via AGI is not close to 100%.
Therefore, some of us prefer to focus more on aging than AGI.
Surely if I die of something other than aging, I don’t die of aging?
Sure, I could have added the caveat “if you don’t die of anything else first (and most people won’t),” but I wanted to keep the caveats to a minimum. Perhaps a general caveat would be that these statements should be understood to apply to most people alive today. About two thirds of deaths are caused by aging (100k out of 150k per day) and in the developed world, it’s 90%.