6 ms·

We'll increasingly observe announcements of this kind as AI tooling scales. As impressive as agentic coding is, it pales in comparison to the value proposition

We'll increasingly observe announcements of this kind as AI tooling scales. As impressive as agentic coding is, it pales in comparison to the value proposition of medical, mathematical, and physics research. I optimistically expect to witness the advent of a global 'panacea' in my lifetime thanks to AI's efforts. Cost effective large scale genetic engineering, a cure for every disease, potentially even a cure for aging. The future is both beautiful and terrifying.

rowanG077 12d ago
I dont think it will happen. AI models are kneecapped. Only a tiny tiny tiny fraction of people are on the list of even being able to use these tools for such things.
- sebzim4500 12d ago
  Even in a world where these models are heavily restricted, surely the likes of cancer researchers will be among those who have access
tinfoilhatter 12d ago
It's wild to think that aging is something that needs to be cured, and isn't a part of the natural human experience. I'm so tired of people trying to play the role of God, as well as people that cheer these sorts of things on.
- sebzim4500 12d ago
  I hope you keep these horrible thoughts to yourself if you ever walk through a paediatric hospital
  - tinfoilhatter 12d ago
    Thinking that aging is a natural part of the human experience is a horrible thought? Please explain...
    - CaptWorld 12d ago
      Childhood deaths and fatal diseases are also natural parts but that doesn't make them desirable to everyday humans. But with new advances, people might have the ability to CHOOSE in future.
  - BeetleB 12d ago
    What does a pediatric hospital have to do with aging...?
    - tsimionescu 11d ago
      The point is that the kind of horrendous diseases you see affecting babies are also, many of them, natural parts of the human experience, just as much as aging. And yet we all like the fact that pediatric hospitals exist to cure these natural diseases.
- nutjob2 12d ago
  Most people want more life. For most people it's also the most terrifying part of "the natural human experience". If you're happy to die, why be bothered by others' trying to live longer? You won't be around. And assuming people can finance it themselves, is it really a problem for society?
  - tinfoilhatter 12d ago
    I assume you mean that dying is the most terrifying pat of the natural human experience. Also, I'm not sure why you infer that me thinking death is a natural part of life, means that I'm happy or eager to die. There are many reasons that people living forever would be a problem for society, the most obvious being an ever-increasing population.
    - dataking 12d ago
      > the most obvious being an ever-increasing population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus
    - s7atic 12d ago
      Fertility rates are below replacement, which means that population sizes are convergent. A decreasing population is a more likely future scenario for many western countries, even if human lifespan was indefinite.
      - fxd 12d ago
        [dead]
      - defrost 12d ago
        Fertility rates are currently below replacement, there's no good reason to imagine they will always be that way, particularly after global population numbers peak and fall to, say, half or a quarter of their peak.
        12d ago
- tintor 12d ago
  Most of the kids in history died before age 5. Child mortality is very low now compared to the past, thanks to the modern medicine and technology. I am glad humanity "played God", and reduced this unnecessary child suffering.
  - bigyabai 12d ago
    They didn't die of senescence.
    - bananaflag 11d ago
      The argument was that senescence is as natural as child mortality, and thus naturalness is not a reason not to fight against it.
      - bigyabai 11d ago
        I don't think that argument holds water? According to WHO, 8 in 10 neonatal deaths are caused by substandard care, not "natural" causes: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/child-mortality-under-5-years https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/child-morta... No matter what standard of care you receive, senescence will gradually kill you even with therapies or treatments to slow it. It's a part of the built-in natural lifecycle that humans can't avoid; it's not analogous to the treatment of incidental injury like pneumonia or sepsis.
        tsimionescu 11d ago
        > No matter what standard of care you receive, senescence will gradually kill you even with therapies or treatments to slow it. That doesn't mean that it can't be entirely reversed. We already know that senescence is not a completely required part of life itself, or even of eukaryotic and/or multicellular organisms - as we have known examples of organisms that don't experience it. For example, jellyfish don't experience senescence (they go through a revolving cycle of polyp - jellyfish that can go on forever as far as we can tell). And even if true permanence is out of reach, we also know of animals that live for hundreds of years, and of plants and fungi that live for thousands or tens of thousands of years. So, having a way to make something like a human (though possibly quite different from what we call a human, to be fair) live for at least a few hundred years if not much more is a very difficult but certainly solvable bioengeneering problem, not some philosophically impossible feat.
- deleted 12d ago
  [deleted]
- 9763268964 12d ago
  [dead]
CJefferson 11d ago
What’s interesting is it’s not obvious how this is leveraged to ‘cure disease’. But I’d love to know.the advantage of this is there is a clear measure of success. Here is a rule language. Prove this. You are done when your proof passes. You can sit quietly and spin for billions of tokens. How does that work for drugs? We can’t let AIs make millions of test drugs and try them out on people.
andersonpico 11d ago
> I optimistically expect to witness the advent of a global 'panacea' in my lifetime thanks to AI's efforts this is a religious belief, maybe you should stop to really examine that (because it might be unintentionally so), but just know that it is obvious to anyone reading these words (anyone who is not mesmerized by technology)

rowanG077 12d ago

I dont think it will happen. AI models are kneecapped. Only a tiny tiny tiny fraction of people are on the list of even being able to use these tools for such things.

sebzim4500 12d ago
Even in a world where these models are heavily restricted, surely the likes of cancer researchers will be among those who have access

tinfoilhatter 12d ago

It's wild to think that aging is something that needs to be cured, and isn't a part of the natural human experience. I'm so tired of people trying to play the role of God, as well as people that cheer these sorts of things on.

sebzim4500 12d ago
I hope you keep these horrible thoughts to yourself if you ever walk through a paediatric hospital
- tinfoilhatter 12d ago
  Thinking that aging is a natural part of the human experience is a horrible thought? Please explain...
  - CaptWorld 12d ago
    Childhood deaths and fatal diseases are also natural parts but that doesn't make them desirable to everyday humans. But with new advances, people might have the ability to CHOOSE in future.
- BeetleB 12d ago
  What does a pediatric hospital have to do with aging...?
  - tsimionescu 11d ago
    The point is that the kind of horrendous diseases you see affecting babies are also, many of them, natural parts of the human experience, just as much as aging. And yet we all like the fact that pediatric hospitals exist to cure these natural diseases.
nutjob2 12d ago
Most people want more life. For most people it's also the most terrifying part of "the natural human experience". If you're happy to die, why be bothered by others' trying to live longer? You won't be around. And assuming people can finance it themselves, is it really a problem for society?
- tinfoilhatter 12d ago
  I assume you mean that dying is the most terrifying pat of the natural human experience. Also, I'm not sure why you infer that me thinking death is a natural part of life, means that I'm happy or eager to die. There are many reasons that people living forever would be a problem for society, the most obvious being an ever-increasing population.
  - dataking 12d ago
    > the most obvious being an ever-increasing population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus
  - s7atic 12d ago
    Fertility rates are below replacement, which means that population sizes are convergent. A decreasing population is a more likely future scenario for many western countries, even if human lifespan was indefinite.
    - fxd 12d ago
      [dead]
    - defrost 12d ago
      Fertility rates are currently below replacement, there's no good reason to imagine they will always be that way, particularly after global population numbers peak and fall to, say, half or a quarter of their peak.
      - 12d ago
tintor 12d ago
Most of the kids in history died before age 5. Child mortality is very low now compared to the past, thanks to the modern medicine and technology. I am glad humanity "played God", and reduced this unnecessary child suffering.
- bigyabai 12d ago
  They didn't die of senescence.
  - bananaflag 11d ago
    The argument was that senescence is as natural as child mortality, and thus naturalness is not a reason not to fight against it.
    - bigyabai 11d ago
      I don't think that argument holds water? According to WHO, 8 in 10 neonatal deaths are caused by substandard care, not "natural" causes: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/child-mortality-under-5-years https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/child-morta... No matter what standard of care you receive, senescence will gradually kill you even with therapies or treatments to slow it. It's a part of the built-in natural lifecycle that humans can't avoid; it's not analogous to the treatment of incidental injury like pneumonia or sepsis.
      - tsimionescu 11d ago
        > No matter what standard of care you receive, senescence will gradually kill you even with therapies or treatments to slow it. That doesn't mean that it can't be entirely reversed. We already know that senescence is not a completely required part of life itself, or even of eukaryotic and/or multicellular organisms - as we have known examples of organisms that don't experience it. For example, jellyfish don't experience senescence (they go through a revolving cycle of polyp - jellyfish that can go on forever as far as we can tell). And even if true permanence is out of reach, we also know of animals that live for hundreds of years, and of plants and fungi that live for thousands or tens of thousands of years. So, having a way to make something like a human (though possibly quite different from what we call a human, to be fair) live for at least a few hundred years if not much more is a very difficult but certainly solvable bioengeneering problem, not some philosophically impossible feat.
deleted 12d ago
[deleted]
9763268964 12d ago
[dead]

CJefferson 11d ago

What’s interesting is it’s not obvious how this is leveraged to ‘cure disease’. But I’d love to know.the advantage of this is there is a clear measure of success. Here is a rule language. Prove this. You are done when your proof passes. You can sit quietly and spin for billions of tokens. How does that work for drugs? We can’t let AIs make millions of test drugs and try them out on people.

andersonpico 11d ago

> I optimistically expect to witness the advent of a global 'panacea' in my lifetime thanks to AI's efforts this is a religious belief, maybe you should stop to really examine that (because it might be unintentionally so), but just know that it is obvious to anyone reading these words (anyone who is not mesmerized by technology)