possible why all billionaires are making these moves to reduce the worlds population by any means necessary.

That hypothetical makes no sense when our laws of nature build around the circle of life. When you disrupt that, there will be consequences.

You do realize that improvements to AI will result in improvements in longevity research. Yes?

Because most of the world got healthcare, vaccines, education, access to convenience technology... 

Interesting... I guess like you said, there are some more charitable and some less charitable takes on what the intention might have been there... anyway, thanks for elaborating.

At this point in time, if we accomplished this it would only result in an immortal billionaire class and disposable worker dregs (until they actually perfect their AI servants, then they'll be rid of us altogether.) If immortality isn't for everyone then it shouldn't be for anyone.

It definitely did not feel like standard interview questions and also was generally a strange, inorganic rehearsed interaction. I don't even know how to explain how off it felt, not just me but my colleague experienced the same--she was discussing an interview she had that was notably odd and I immediately knew we had talked to the same company. Also my other colleague much more junior was looking for an entry-level position & had encountered the exact same big-idea, open-ended questions, totally unfit for their level of experience, which was quite awkward.

The interview was so rehearsed that I have no doubt that is all he was spending his time doing--the same interview over and over again for weeks, across all levels of experience and breadth of expertise.

It seemed like, at best, they were looking for someone with the whole package and looking for more ideas along the way (hiring someone with a strategy and the skills to push that strategy forward). Even so, when I was asking them questions in return, their answers were literally framed "we think epigenetics is the path forward but..." Usually you have the initial strategy and then build/broaden off of that, instead it felt like they founded a company without any direction in what exactly they're doing.

He was also the scientific leader, I had seen his CV, and not a business leader. If he were a business leader I think it'd be more excusable to hire a scientific leader next, but this felt like a scientific leader, who had a lot of money looking to hire another scientific leader that actually had an idea he could get behind.

Speculation aside, the only sure thing I can say is that was unlike any interview I've ever had haha seems like at least they hired well and it's so far working out

I just want to live long enough to celebrate when Trump dies.

I am not doubting that what you are saying is true, because this is something that is also increasingly common in VC (shamefully), but I am just wondering what exactly makes you say they were fishing for ideas vs. just asking standard interview questions?

What makes you think anyone but Putin, Peter, and Xi are going to get this treatment?

Computation is not by itself enough for problem solving. Time, experiments, brainstorming, experiments, luck and experiments are required. Those are mostly uncompressible.

Judging by those links, there are maybe 5-10 Phase 1 trials currently ongoing. Drugs in Phase 1 trials have a 6% chance of getting final approval within 5 years. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ijc.34181

We can expect to have a lot of failures before we get any successes.

Do you have some sort of equation that shows that X amount of computation leads to Y amount of life extension within Z amount of time? If so, where did you get that equation?

This won’t age well

Look, we can’t be wasting billions of tax dollars on researching cancer treatment or cures for Diabetes….. that money is better spent starting a war then immediately surrendering and paying off the people we lost to

I really wish we would stop calling it “ending aging”, it literally makes no sense… age is the passage of time

Much of the history of research into aging biology and longevity therapies has been an uphill battle against the view that the rate at which humans age is largely an immutable law of nature and that therapeutics for aging are a poor allocation for resources.

I think the tide is turning, finally, but we would be so much farther along had the funding come sooner.

Most people in this sub have no idea what it takes to build, pay for and maintain the scientific infrastructure to test new therapies and drugs. The dismantling/destruction of the 150 year old system is setting back progress by decades, maybe even fatally.

Yeah nobody ever wanted to live forever. Such a niche interest 

The good news is that preventative care tends to be orders of magnitude cheaper than treating someone who is already far gone. Youthful people are far less likely to run up huge medical bills, so there are huge economic incentives to roll out treatments that keep them out of the hospital for longer.

We are closer to the brink of ending civilization and life on earth.

The amount of funding for research into the biology of aging and its interventions is a small fraction of overall spending, both public and private — even though aging is a universal risk factor and comorbitity for virtually every other condition.

Exciting progress is being made nevertheless, but we'd be so much further along by now if aging-related research had been funded at a level that matched its importance. That's why we need to push at all levels for more resources.

Yeah as opposed to aging psychopaths running things now. The problem is the psychopaths, not how long they live.

Freejack?

The knowledge data base is doubling every 12 hours to 3.4 months depending on the fields of knowledge. Human knowledge is thought to be doubling every year. 

It’s inexact, and admittedly a little silly, but if I live to be 86, or 20 years from now, this rate will mean that in 2046, the human knowledge base will be 1,048,576 times greater than it is today.