The paper IMO spends too little time on the important question, which is how much impact you get per dollar. The paper instead assumes that you could plausibly hasten developing full aging reversal by 1 second for 5,500$.
For neglectedness, it would be good to discuss current funding levels. Gemini suggested ballpark 11 billion annually.
For tractability, it would be good to discuss particular research lines that have had success. For example, how much have we lengthened mice lifespans? What is our rate of progress there?
Also, many folks on the EA Forum dislike posting links without copying the text to the forum. I mostly agree, although IMO it is fine to do in a 'Quick Take'.
I wrote a short paper arguing that it is morally permissible for effective altruists (and everyone else) to fund research to hasten the defeat of human aging. Any feedback is appreciated.
Crossposted to Less Wrong
‘Like most of life’s dangers, the dangers of artificial intelligence are not easily identified from the armchair.’
J Dmitri Gallow
Epistemic status
I’m not an expert in this field, and herein I make some sweeping generalisations educated guesses about the overall...
Thanks to Bruce Friedrich, Seth Ariel Green, Tobias Leenaert, Jan Willem Bolderdijk, Martine van Haperen, Herman Rohrbach, Chris Popa and Elizabeth Alvarez for comments. Claude helped structure the text. Ideas and mistakes are my own. I currently work with ProVeg International. The prize I propose would be defined and judged by an independent committee, and its money would fund scaling the winning solution(s), not ProVeg or the winner.
TL/DR
* EA could d...
Let’s imagine it’s November 2031. We’re both still here, AI is much more capable than it is today, but governments are governing, civilisation is still (mostly) civilised, and there has been no catastrophic loss of control. It just kind of didn’t happen.
What happens to the AI safety field then?
I expect people who currently believe catastrophe could happen within two or three years will start saying five or ten years. Then 15. Then ‘who cares if we’re a few decades of...
[I did not downvote]
The paper IMO spends too little time on the important question, which is how much impact you get per dollar. The paper instead assumes that you could plausibly hasten developing full aging reversal by 1 second for 5,500$.
For neglectedness, it would be good to discuss current funding levels. Gemini suggested ballpark 11 billion annually.
For tractability, it would be good to discuss particular research lines that have had success. For example, how much have we lengthened mice lifespans? What is our rate of progress there?
Also, many folks on the EA Forum dislike posting links without copying the text to the forum. I mostly agree, although IMO it is fine to do in a 'Quick Take'.
Thanks for your feedback. I will repost a revised version, which doesn’t address your three main points, but which is I think more compelling.