Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Vehks t1_j5le3f1 wrote

>"That isn't in humans yet, let's make that clear"

That's the rub.

Until we actually see some kind of rejuvenation that works in humans we don't know.

It COULD be a step, but it could just as easily be yet another 'in-mice-only' procedure that goes nowhere.

I still remain in the camp that we won't see huge breakthroughs in rejuvenation and LEV until AI is finally fully let loose in the field.

22

Cryptizard t1_j5lsv75 wrote

At some point before we have human LEV, are we going to have immortal mouse pets? Seems like we should already be able to do it based on all the results you read about…

10

Middle_Cod_6011 OP t1_j5lffhh wrote

I dont have anything to back this up with but i have good feeling about this one !

3

Vehks t1_j5lfuxx wrote

Well, I'm more than happy to be wrong, the sooner the better, but like I said I think it's probably gonna be AI that cracks this problem.

1

EddgeLord666 t1_j5mft9x wrote

Is there a reason incremental progress by human researchers wouldn’t be enough?

1

Vehks t1_j5mgjyo wrote

It would be 'enough' eventually, for those who happen to fortunate to be alive when these treatments come to fruition, but who knows how long that will be.

Human research, at least in the medical rejuvenation branch, is glacial slow. Especially with mice experiments as the vast majority do not translate into anything practical for humans.

For those who are currently alive today and would like to benefit, would definitely want this research kicked into high gear and AI would do just that.

For example, the covid vaccine? AI helped develop that in 3 days I believe, the reason it took 8 months to get it out into people's arms was because the vaccine had to go through the FDA's extremely slow vetting process for safety, but the actual development time was extremely quick thanks to AI.

Normally vaccines take years to develop, true the fact that it was a world wide pandemic expedited a lot of the processes, but the point still stands, when AI comes into the equation research time drops fast.

3

EddgeLord666 t1_j5mgseo wrote

I mean would it realistically take more than like 60 years (long enough for me at least)? That’s the difference between now and the moon landing and the first true computers.

1

Vehks t1_j5mhff7 wrote

So you're just concerned about yourself then and your supposed 60 years?

What about people who don't have 60 years? What about your relatives like your parents, for example, do you want them to make it as well? I'm sure you do.

Also, are you sure you have 60 years? What if you develop some terminal disease? Anything can happen within a time frame of 60 years. Rejuvenation also means more robust disease treatments as well

The more time this takes, the more needless deaths there will be, is my point. In this specific case, faster is most certainly better all around.

3

EddgeLord666 t1_j5mhmd6 wrote

Well some people are inevitably going to die of old age, I hope it’s as few as possible though. It would be nice if my parents were able to live, they would need it to happen in the next 20 or 30 years.

3

Vehks t1_j5mi0yp wrote

>It would be nice if my parents were able to live, they would need it to happen in the next 20 or 30 years.

Exactly, and that is well within the realm of possibility if AI takes the helm.

AI is like the 'secret sauce' when it comes to research/experiment time

3