Thread

1. modeless · 1790190319 · focus · HN ↗

   It's clear Dario believes that the solution to AI's PR problem is to cure cancer. Or invent other revolutionary medical treatments. They're going to heavily promote every step along the way no matter how small or far away from commercialization they are, like this one.

   No doubt that curing cancer would help, but I think the timeline might be a little too long. Even RSI AGI will not be able to get new medical treatments to market instantly. Real world testing takes a long time and is an unavoidable part of the process.

   1. baq · 1790190821 · focus · HN ↗

      Dario would like to ‘cure’ aging. He’s got some personal experience with bad illnesses, but aging isn’t that. I also have reduced trust for people who want to live forever and don’t have kids.

      1. SwellJoe · 1790191119 · focus · HN ↗

         > I also have reduced trust for people who want to live forever and don’t have kids.

         I want to live forever (or until I'm bored of it) and I don't have kids. I'm not sure what that has to do with trustworthiness.

         Edit: And, you're saying you want to die. Is that more trustworthy than not wanting to die? I suppose if you are religious, you might believe you're going somewhere good when you die, in which case, you don't actually believe death exists, so we're having different conversations. I believe death exists and is permanent, and I'd like to not do that.

         1. hlynurd · 1790191248 · focus · HN ↗

            Yeah we gotta put me on that list too. This is a weirdly specific prejudice.
         2. tripleee · 1790191287 · focus · HN ↗

            +1

            what a weird bias

         3. nxc18 · 1790191779 · focus · HN ↗

            Do you not want other people to die and be replaced?

            1. GeoAtreides · 1790192149 · focus · HN ↗

               do these other people have a fertility rate of at least 2.1?
            2. SwellJoe · 1790192547 · focus · HN ↗

               [delayed]
            3. throw310822 · 1790197807 · focus · HN ↗

               How can you want for other people what you don't want for yourself? Why should other people die, for example of cancer, when having the chance I'll opt for the cure?

               1. nxc18 · 1790200950 · focus · HN ↗

                  I don’t want to live longer than a natural human lifespan. When I was younger and immature I did, but I’ve outgrown that. Death is as natural a part of life as birth.

                  1. SwellJoe · 1790201532 · focus · HN ↗

                     [delayed]

                     1. nxc18 · 1790270386 · focus · HN ↗

                        I assure you it can happen as young as thirty. Or you can desperately cling to life until it is ripped away forcefully, leaving you in a panic.

                        I think early death is bad in the general case.

                        1. tripleee · 1790270974 · focus · HN ↗

                           What is an early death?

                           Life expectancy has changed a lot. In 1900 the life expectancy was around 40. A while before that it was 30. What will it be if we cure cancer, alzheimers, dementia, heart disease (the main killers of "old age")?

                           This sounds like you've just accepted that death is inevitable and you might as well not fight it, which is fair, but that's quite different from not wanting to live longer if the opportunity was available.

                  2. throw310822 · 1790217254 · focus · HN ↗

                     The question is not if you want to live longer. It's "when you'll get cancer, will you refuse the cure to get rid of it"? And when you'll be old and frail and full of aches, will you refuse medicines to make your mind sharper and your body stronger? And when you'll be a strong, healthy and sharp 95 yo, will you choose euthanasia because you've reached the natural human lifespan?
                  3. solenoid0937 · 1790218846 · focus · HN ↗

                     This is just copium. On your deathbed, offered the chance to live another decade with the vitality of your 20s alongside your loved ones, you almost certainly would not say this unless you were actually just suicidal.
            4. sebzim4500 · 1790199391 · focus · HN ↗

               Obviously not? What an insane question

               1. nxc18 · 1790200886 · focus · HN ↗

                  You would like Trump and Biden and their generation of leadership to be in power for the next 200 years? You would like for there to never be a disruptive new generation of people bringing fresh ideas and fresh thinking ever again? You wish to be encumbered by 17th century thinking and ideas for the rest of eternity because those people never died and grew set in their ways?

                  1. SwellJoe · 1790201457 · focus · HN ↗

                     [delayed]
                  2. sebzim4500 · 1790204719 · focus · HN ↗

                     a) I don't want any of those things b) I don't understand why you think those things are necessary consequences of people living much longer c) Even if they were, I don't want 'fresh ideas' so much that I am willing to sacrifice tens of billions of people for them

                     1. nxc18 · 1790270156 · focus · HN ↗

                        > I don't understand why you think those things are necessary consequences of people living much longer

                        You’ve seen the consequences already of people routinely living into their late 80s and you think adding a few hundred years would make that better?

                        Yes, people should grow old and die.

         4. bigfudge · 1790192134 · focus · HN ↗

            Not Op but there’s a inch of people asking why, and I have a similar feeling to op so here’s my post hoc justification for a weakly held and poorly supported prejudice:

            It’s really because statistically, in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without. This is more in description than judgement, but it’s true in my experience. We can speculate as to reasons, but looking after kids does train a certain kind of selflessness. Agreed we might be doing it for ultimately selfish reasons (self presentational or for care in old age or whatever). But for a good chunk of the time, caring for kids seems to require the fairly consistent subjugation of personal preferences, and a degeee of perspective taking, that I just think people without kids don’t have. And that often shows in their interactions at work and in daily life. Obviously there are myriad exceptions. But it’s true enough in my experience.

            The wanting to live forever part also seems weird to me, and correlated with a certain sort of self regarding perspective. It seems obvious to me that I (or my generations) need to die for my children and grandchildren to have a good life. To try and subvert that also seems selfish or self important somehow.

            I’m not really arguing this is a correct or good or just position. It might be terrible! But it did resonate..

            1. AbsurdCensor · 1790193776 · focus · HN ↗

               > It’s really because statistically, in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without.

               That would certainly be your opinion. I think the ultimate selflessness in a world being more and more damaged by humans would to elect not to perpetuate the species, and help try to leave the world a better place for those who do choose to have kids.

               1. anthonypasq · 1790194151 · focus · HN ↗

                  very very bizarre ideology. Glad you arent having kids. thank you for your service.
               2. mik1998 · 1790194550 · focus · HN ↗

                  That's an absurdly selfish position. You're taking a stance that not existing is superior to living in the future, all the while living in the world yourself. Might as well advocate for nuclear genocide.

                  1. tuesdaynight · 1790195815 · focus · HN ↗

                     Why selfish? They said that they want to leave the world a better place for other people children. Is there something that I didn't get as an ESL?
                  2. AbsurdCensor · 1790279866 · focus · HN ↗

                     It's incredibly selfish to think that your value to pollute the planet is somehow more valuable than not existing.
               3. muspimerol · 1790195690 · focus · HN ↗

                  The flaw in that ideology is that everyone relies on the next generation for care in their old age. Taking advantage of the future generation without contributing to raising it isn't selfless in the slightest.

                  If you live in a developed country you probably already have a demographic crisis. Not having kids is hurting the next generation, not helping.

                  1. hlynurd · 1790198773 · focus · HN ↗

                     It still baffles me that some have children to have someone around them when they're old
                  2. AbsurdCensor · 1790279489 · focus · HN ↗

                     How is it a flawed ideology? There are a whole lot of places around the world who have people that want to help, allow them to help and pay them appropriately and at the same time make it easier for folks to live longer and more productive lives without the dedicated assistances of others. It's almost like 'community' means not just for the young.
            2. ForHackernews · 1790194163 · focus · HN ↗

               Isn't this just selfishness once removed? "I'm not doing this for me — it's for my kid, I would do ANYTHING (lie, cheat, steal, murder, bribe the admissions staff) for my child. See how selfless I am?"
            3. BeetleB · 1790194774 · focus · HN ↗

               > It’s really because statistically, in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without.

               I've witnessed the opposite: Having kids made people much more selfish. Resources were plenty before they had kids, so they would spend a lot (time and money) on others - be it friends or the general public.

               When kids come along, two things happen:

               1. Resources are limited, so a lot less goes outside the family.

               2. At least one parent will put the foot down when being generous to people outside the family - even if the wealth/income supports being able to do so. Tribalism sets in.

               1. phainopepla2 · 1790201319 · focus · HN ↗

                  Selfishness is commonly understood as putting one's own interest above everyone else's to an excessive degree, not the interest of their family. If you redefine it to include family interests then I think everyone would agree that having a family makes people more selfish, often dramatically so.

                  I just object to the redefinition.

                  1. BeetleB · 1790203532 · focus · HN ↗

                     I think this "redefinition" is apt in the context of the conversation. It's about people mistrusting those without kids because they are viewed as selfish, and I'm pointing out that they're often the least selfish, and more likely to "help the world" in situations where they do not benefit.

                     1. bigfudge · 1790234766 · focus · HN ↗

                        I can see your point, although in my experience it hasn’t actually worked that way. But even then, normalised for the amount of free time they have i think it’s unlikely to hold .

                        Take a specific scenario: imagine a difficult outdoors adventure maybe cycling or walking, when the weather is bad and something has gone wrong (and any kids have been left at home). All else equal would you rather be stuck with a parent or a non parent?!

            4. cannonpalms · 1790194920 · focus · HN ↗

               This aligns with my own experience to a T.
            5. rtsil · 1790195359 · focus · HN ↗

               Paying full taxes to support a society where people with kids pay less taxes and receive more benefits from the State is certainly not selfish. That's the case in my country, at least.

               1. charcircuit · 1790196519 · focus · HN ↗

                  Money is not the only way one can contribute to one's society. Doubling the amount of productive people to society is also a big contribution.
               2. swat535 · 1790258113 · focus · HN ↗

                  Those people pay less tax, because their children will pay for your retirement and provide support at your old age.
            6. asdff · 1790197481 · focus · HN ↗

               >It’s really because statistically, in my experience

               Uhh, no. Your experience is not data.

            7. sebzim4500 · 1790199293 · focus · HN ↗

               >in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without

               This goes so far against my own (equally anecdotal) experience that one of us must be living in a bubble

            8. orangecat · 1790203222 · focus · HN ↗

               The wanting to live forever part also seems weird to me

               Wanting to die after a handful of decades seems weird to me, especially if you're in good health.

               It seems obvious to me that I (or my generations) need to die for my children and grandchildren to have a good life

               That is very much not obvious.

               1. bigfudge · 1790235012 · focus · HN ↗

                  Boomer health and life expectancy is one of the issues western countries are struggling with now. Having GenZ pay for extended expensive retirements whilst simultaneously gouging them for artificially scare accommodation is the result. Now imagine everyone lives in perfect health forever. The incumbency effect for wealth and power is going to be overwhelming without pretty fundamental political and social change.

                  Perhaps you think that is possible? I hope so, but the evidence from octogenarian US politics isn’t hopeful.

                  1. orangecat · 1790361482 · focus · HN ↗

                     Boomer health and life expectancy is one of the issues western countries are struggling with now

                     Yes, because old people need expensive health care and are much less productive. Those are two of the major reasons to solve aging. (The third and most important being quality of life).

                     Now imagine everyone lives in perfect health forever.

                     That would be great. Medical costs would fall drastically, and the worker-to-dependent ratio goes way up.

            9. esikich · 1790204657 · focus · HN ↗

               I've long been thinking about making a browser addon to block HN users. You've inspired me to get this done tonight, thank you for the push, your comment is unhinged and I'd rather not ever have to read what you say about anything else.

               1. krapp · 1790204858 · focus · HN ↗

                  If you don't want to do the work look up "HN Comments Owl."
         5. Glyptodon · 1790192169 · focus · HN ↗

            I think there's a nuance gap here. Many of us, if offered, would be happy to live for a a millennium or two if we'd stay at worst middle-aged. But there's a giant gap between being willing to take that offer if given, and a desire for it being a big personal motivating factor.
         6. patcon · 1790192592 · focus · HN ↗

            > I want to live forever (or until I'm bored of it) and I don't have kids. I'm not sure what that has to do with trustworthiness.

            When I hear people say stuff like this, I hear that they want to remove the single most universal chesterton's fence in all of living systems. I hear them take pride in their/our hubris, and demonstrate willingness to put the whole multiplex ecology of life at risk because they believe themselves/us to be more clever than thermodynamic evolution.

            Biological singletons (outside very specific niche situations) are not meant to persist, and most anything that has tried, it has simply been selected out of the lineage. This constraint (which we don't understand yet) is presumably the whole reason why biology discovered and moved into the more ephemeral higher-order substrate of thought and culture.

            Just my feelings though. Feel free to disagree.

            1. lirolero · 1790193277 · focus · HN ↗

               [dead]

            2. hlynurd · 1790193678 · focus · HN ↗

               > are not meant to

               Because it hasn't happened?

            3. SwellJoe · 1790193947 · focus · HN ↗

               Chesterton's fence implies intention, a will, a decision to stand up the fence. I don't believe in gods, so my existence and its length were determined by a series of accidents. It isn't right or wrong or even optimal, it's just the traits that survived thus far.

               It isn't even a rule of biology. There are living things with much longer lifespans than humans, some even effectively immortal (absent predation or accident or climate change).

               Your language implies you believe in a creator of some sort, something making decisions about how things should be. You've called it "biology", but "biology" doesn't "discover" or have a "reason" for doing things.

               > I hear them take pride in their/our hubris, and demonstrate willingness to put the whole multiplex ecology of life at risk because they believe themselves/us to be more clever than thermodynamic evolution.

               I hear you taking pride in accepting death on a quite short timespan as a necessity, and hubris that one individual living longer puts "the whole multiplex ecology of life at risk".

               We have already disconnected from evolution, to a large degree. Many people who would have died in childhood a couple hundred years ago now survive to adulthood and procreation.

               Should we stop vaccinating children because they were supposed to die to protect the delicate balance? Surely it is hubris to prevent their deaths when evolution and biology discovered polio and smallpox to kill and maim them? If there is a biological Chesterton's fence it is probably sitting somewhere around five years old and half of people wouldn't make it past it.

               1. howunfortunate · 1790196435 · focus · HN ↗

                  > Chesterton's fence implies intention, a will, a decision to stand up the fence

                  It most certainly does not.

                  1. SwellJoe · 1790197555 · focus · HN ↗

                     [delayed]

                     1. howunfortunate · 1790198433 · focus · HN ↗

                        As one obvious example, evolution is not agentic but still answers "why" questions.

                        "Why do we have a heart" "Why do we sweat", etc.

                        But Chesterton's fence is often used in an even MORE generalized way than just that, not "why is it there" but "what are we not seeing about how this connects to everything else"

                        As an example, eradicating mosquitos. We see many obvious reasons why it might be good, we can even see that they don't seem that important in the food chain, but it would be hubris to assume we understand every potential connection they have to world ecology.

                        1. SwellJoe · 1790202026 · focus · HN ↗

                           [delayed]
                        2. SwellJoe · 1790213148 · focus · HN ↗

                           [delayed]
            4. orangecat · 1790203420 · focus · HN ↗

               they believe themselves/us to be more clever than thermodynamic evolution.

               "Thermodynamic evolution" says that sick kids should be left to die so that we can replace them with a better roll of the genetic dice. Yes, I do think we're more clever than that.

               1. patcon · 1790205338 · focus · HN ↗

                  That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is us as a larger living system, coarse-grain scale. We each live at fine-grained scale. Negotiating truths and values between those is the fuckin work of being alive. Bluntly, some might reasonably ask: who wants you individually to be happy and surrounding by family if your society trends toward failure? That's not me saying "I don't care about you" (I do!) but it's me pointing out that there are fuzzy lines when negotiating values across scales.

                  Death is part of our thriving and a part of us ("us" in the Gaian sense) at the largest coarse-grain scale, though it hurts like hell at the fine-grain one

                  1. SwellJoe · 1790213567 · focus · HN ↗

                     > who would reasonably prioritize your individual happiness and health if the cost on your society/culture means a trend toward collapse?

                     What evidence do you have that people living longer would cause a trend toward collapse? What evidence do you have that people who live longer and without debilitating health problems wouldn't care more about the future of our planet and society and be able to achieve more toward improving it?

                     You're accusing people who want to live longer of selfishly causing societal collapse acting as though you're taking a moral high road, preserving a precious thing, but you're arguing that 8 billion people alive today should die. That's a remarkable bit of ethical gymnastics and a monstrous position to take by my reckoning.

                     I was kind of OK with it when I was thinking, "OK, religious people believe nobody ever really dies." Which I believe is a fairy story, but one that many people believe and are raised to believe. But, yours seems to be your own brand of religion, and it doesn't even pretend people actually never die and go to heaven but you want it to happen to everyone anyway, which is really something.

                     1. solenoid0937 · 1790218532 · focus · HN ↗

                        There is no coherent reasoning with this crowd. It's just rationalized copium about the fact that they will die.

                        They don't dare to dream of a world in which this isn't the case because you can't get hurt by a future you don't believe in.

                        1. patcon · 1790225204 · focus · HN ↗

                           Ugh, I suppose I perhaps seem as insufferably myopic to you, as you do to me.

                           Collapse is evident in that almost nothing survives being immortal except cancers and flatworms. You witness the evidence of this "collapse" all around you in that virtually nothing deigns to live forever and tell the tale (genetically speaking), and then you call me neglectful of some so-called evidence?

                           And as for your challenge, you don't know the conversations I've had with people I love. The politics of immortality are so challenging that I would not write my sincere beliefs so readily on the public internet.

                           EDIT: I do appreciate the chance to engage with ppl so different from the sort I regularly speak with, and so am grateful for the words, even if it seems we are both a little frustrated by them. Which is to say, thanks

                           1. solenoid0937 · 1790253336 · focus · HN ↗

                              Humans are unique. We solve problems. Lots of things we do - cannot be seen in nature and would be thought to be impossible. I am sure you can think of many examples!

                              The political problem is a solvable one. We have been solving such problems for millennia. It is not a reason for eight billion people to die.

                              1. patcon · 1790296983 · focus · HN ↗

                                 Agree to disagree, but I appreciate the sincerity, and I know that what you're saying seems very reasonable to many :)
                     2. patcon · 1790224682 · focus · HN ↗

                        Collapse is evident in that almost nothing survives being immortal except cancers and flatworms. You witness the evidence of this "collapse" all around you in that nothing deigns to live forever and tell the tale, and then you call me neglectful of evidence?
         7. alasano · 1790192948 · focus · HN ↗

            The prejudice is based on billionaires being the first to get access to the cure for aging in these hypothetical scenarios.

            While everyone else can't afford it. Hard to think of a more demoralizing "off with their heads" dystopian scenario.

            1. ForHackernews · 1790194288 · focus · HN ↗

               Agree. If I have to die, Musk better die first.
            2. SwellJoe · 1790194591 · focus · HN ↗

               Well, sure, but there are solutions to those particular billionaires. We don't have any politicians I'm aware of that are willing to consider those solutions, but they exist. Societies, including the US (to some degree), have solved the problem of oligarchs in the past through various means. We can do it again, and should consider all the options.
            3. notnullorvoid · 1790196316 · focus · HN ↗

               On a personal level it would be demoralizing to see some billionaires live multiple lifetimes, but only a tad more demoralizing than seeing the wealth disparity we already have and the changing line of idiot faces at the top.
            4. optimalsolver · 1790197052 · focus · HN ↗

               Think of rich people as beta testers.
            5. andriy_koval · 1790197131 · focus · HN ↗

               especially given how they fund their billions from 401k through rapid inclusion into indexes, building DCs near residential areas, steeling IP, regulatory capture and hype driving manipulations.
         8. throw310822 · 1790197537 · focus · HN ↗

            Don't worry, all these people moralising on the importance of aging and dying will do their utmost to live longer and in better health whenever the time of the choice comes. No one will say "oh well I guess I'll just keep this illness because that's the natural course of things"- they will get the medicines and the surgery, the creams and the lotions, they'll jog and limit exposure to the sun and avoid smoking and drinking. Given the choice, unless incurably ill or in the depth of despair, they'll always choose life. At least for themselves.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.