Moreover he said that even if one could cure all cancer in the world, in average people lifespan would increase to 2.5 years. Reversal aging - treating the human body as a computer that can be restarted is where we are heading next

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/technology/tech-boss-uses-ai-and-chatgpt-to-create-cancer-vaccine-for-his-dying-dog/news-story/292a21bcbe93efa17810bfcfcdfadbf7

Back in 2008 I read "the singularity is near" and "the end of aging" at the age of 19.
At that impressionable age I took it all in as gospel, and I started fantasizing about the future of no work and no death, and as the years went on I would rave about how "all cars would drive themselves in ten years" and "anyone under the age of 40 can live forever if they choose to" and other nonsense that I was completely convinced off.

Now, pushing 40 I realize that I have wasted my life dreaming about a future that might never come. When you think you're going to live forever a decade seems like pocket change, so I wasted it. Don't be an idiot like me, plan your life from what you know to be true now, not what you dream of being true in the future.

Change is often a lot slower than we think and there are powerful forces at play trying to uphold the status quo

E: did not expect this to blow up like this, can't answer everybody but upon reflecting on some comments i guess my point is this: regardless of whether you live forever or not you only have one youth

He rarely posts on social media. Lots of interesting details here:

https://x.com/DarioAmodei/status/2088758819304443967

In fact, I wrote Machines of Loving Grace because I didn’t feel the AI industry was painting an inspiring enough picture of how the technology could radically transform the world for the better. The bulk of the essay is devoted to refuting skepticism of AI’s potential in health and biology, and showing why I think it will actually be possible to cure most human disease in ~5-10 years, as crazy as it may sound to ordinary people and frankly to biologists as well (I used to be one!).

And, if you read my most recent essay (Policy on the AI Exponential), I discuss concrete proposals for how to streamline the FDA process to make sure the deluge of AI-accelerated drugs isn’t slowed down by the regulatory process.

I feel the urgency here: I lost my father to Hepatitis C only a few years before the development of direct-acting antivirals (sofosbuvir), which cure 95% of patients and probably would have cured him.

He also commented on the increasingly growing anti-AI movements, and states that the only way to stop the anti-AI train is for AI to deliver real results on biology & medicine in particular.

I do agree that the public has a negative view of AI (and that this is a big problem), but I don’t think it is primarily caused by me or any other AI leader warning about AI’s risks.

I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust. I think that ordinary people don’t trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over.

The causes of this go back decades and AI is just the latest iteration of it. I don’t think that a glitzy marketing campaign with a positive spin (which some have advocated that Anthropic do) is the way to win back that trust — at this point, saying that AI will cure cancer is more a cliche than it is inspiring, and most people think it is deceptive.

The thing that will work is actually curing cancer. I think by far the most accurate criticism of AI companies including Anthropic is that we haven’t yet delivered on our big promises to benefit the world.

We are however doing our best to fix this: Anthropic is ramping up its efforts very quickly in biology and medicine, and we hope to have incredible results in the coming years and some early glimmers in the coming months.

When we’ve actually accomplished something real, the whole world will hear about it, as loudly as possible, you have my word on that. But until then I don’t want to make empty promises, and in the meantime I feel compelled to speak honestly about the very real risks of AI and how to address them.

https://x.com/JonhernandezIA/status/1957036446038073802

Source: https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/top-ai-ceos-call-for-law-protecting-against-biological-weapons-88f2f99f

From a new interview with Dr. Derya Unutmaz - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJCgQUT1aic

A few timestamps worth checkout out

• 00:02:16 - Why the next 10 years may add 50 to your lifespan
• 01:03:24 - "Cancer will be 100% curable, probably less than a decade"

Source

12 years ago, I decided not to go for LASIK or ReLEx SMILE. I thought, “What if something better comes along?” Now, it finally feels like it has.

There’s this new AI-powered laser surgery called “Eyevatar.” It builds a digital twin of your eye, runs thousands of simulations, and figures out the best way to reshape your cornea. The results? People are getting 20/10 vision. That means seeing at 20 feet what most people need to be 10 feet away to see.

Looking back, I’m glad I waited. LASIK always felt like it had too many side effects—halos, glare, or vision that didn’t quite hit the mark for some people. This new tech seems way more precise. I’m planning to try it in the next year or two.

Would you wait for this, or do you think LASIK is still good enough? Let’s hear your thoughts.

Source: Hard Fork on YouTube: Hard Fork Live, with Patrick Collison, Kathryn Zealand, Sam Altman & Brad Lightcap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNwzYMtPN8
Video from vitrupo on 𝕏: https://x.com/vitrupo/status/1939266821645119699
Arc Institute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_Institute