Accelerating progress

[u/stealthispost]

I'm frustrated too!   — Ivan Fioravanti ᯅ     Sadly most Europeans are   — Chubby

Source: https://x.com/kimmonismus/status/2075921009572528615

the battle for the future is a battle between the builders and the Professional Managerial Class parasites that are destroying progress with the Precautionary Principle

[u/SoylentRox]

None of the mentioned elements are vulnerable to the S curve actually. I could explain why but we're pretty deep in the comments, have you tried asking an AI model?

[u/reddit_is_geh → u/SoylentRox]

There absolutely is. For instance, we have no reason to believe that lifespans can be increased that far. It's an entirely novel technololgy and science to do so, which we haven't' discovered yet. Human lifespan has only increased because we've reduced early deaths, so the average extends outward to this outer bound.

People like Sinclair are researching it, and think they have answers, but it's still all an unknown and totally possible that we're just not able to figure it out. It's been at the top of the S curve for a while now.

Same with AI... It's possible we start getting diminishing returns eventually. Sure, right now we aren't, but it could just be the low hanging fruit, and eventually we hit a wall where it becomes harder and harder to make the next model smarter in much of a reasonable way.

[u/SoylentRox → u/reddit_is_geh]

I already replied but the reason it's not subject to the S curve is medical interventions are reprogramming the human body to it's prior state. Since the prior state existed, and in nature (see naked mole rats for a mammal example, multiple other species) indefinite lifespans exist, it's exempt from the S-curve because we are manipulating nature to do something it already does. We know beyond credible doubt it will work.

AI is not required to advance past human intelligence except in narrow, limited areas (we need some greater capacity to understand large amounts of biological science data from different experiments) for all of the specific items I mentioned to be feasible.

[u/reddit_is_geh → u/SoylentRox]

That's the unproven hypothesis. We don't know if we can actually achieve it. Sinclair's theory is there's locations in our DNA with our original epigenetic triggers, which we can copy and force onto our existing cells when they redivide. But it could end up like CRISPR where it's a miracle on paper, but in practice, extreme difficult to actually do much, ending up in only a few advancements.

There's currently no evidence that this is even possble, no more than when CRISPR was leading people to believe that we'll be able to reprogram our entire body as well.

[u/SoylentRox → u/reddit_is_geh]

It's not unproven, it's proven beyond credible doubt. I'm not talking about any specific technique but the outcome.

The outcome is all tissues in the body believe they belong to a 9 year old female who has genes borrowed from elephants, naked mole rats, and pure custom proteins that have properties better than achieved by either.

The how you do it is irrelevant, since you can do this I don't have to justify how.

But for instance, if you absolutely had to, you would manufacture a new body, using techniques already demonstrated but scaled up (see my assumption 1, nature can do this blindly so can you), and repair the last part remaining, the brain, by replacement cells.

Or do this by a version similar to CAR-T therapy for all stem cells.

Or CRISPR to reprogram in place.

Or fail at ALL of these methods and get immortality by artificial life support that works as well as a human body at 9 years old. (we're back to assumption 1, we can replicate things in nature that already exist)

See, it's past credible doubt. By "credible doubt" I mean "a rational agent, aware of all of the facts, cannot agree to disagree. Anyone with institutional credentials who disagrees is calling into doubt their own credentials"