Is this mad monk and SENS hacks like Musk...

they very likely are spending money on that kind of research in secrecy
After all only Aubrey and a few others are honest about their purpose

Are they really ?
I understand why you want to think that, but are they ?

If you consider how much contempt they would probably get for it, I'd do it in secret too.

I think so yes, under some pretexts like curing all diseases or "reprogramming" cells so they don't get cancerous

to put it simply, most rich people have no idea that he and SENS exist.

it's particularly crazy because to have a proof of concept of SENS therapies on humans you would just need 50, maybe 100 millions but not more than that.

facebook spent 19 billions to buy whatsapp.

they are not. there are very few people in the field and none of them is working in some secretive lab.

What I meant is that of those people very few are honest about what goals they are trying to achieve, most of them will not openly say that they are working on "immortality" (whether by halting or reversing the aging process or with some cyborg bullshit thing)

Ultimately I'm saying they are probably funding it indirectly under the pretense of fighting all diseases for instance (Like suckerberg did, if he's genuine about it)

>anti-aging guru
>looks 25years older than he is

ya, immortality...here we come

wow, really makes me think

No, he's completely unlike Musk. Musk has been able to get results. He doesn't do any wetlab work. And by doesn't do any, I mean none at all. Not even having grad students do it.

Aubrey de Gray is a bigger meme than Musk

What makes you think ageing will be solved in 50 years?

eh, peter thiel is his main funder I think

You could test it for peanuts, relatively speaking, off the books.

He's not, but he donated like 600 000 - 1 million

Their main funder is De Grey himself: he was rich, he inherited 13-14 millions, and donated 11 of them to SENS (another big reason to believe he's not there to scam people..)

Human-level AI will probably emerge before 2040. Can't imagine it'd be a very large gap between strong AI and indefinite human lifespans.

THERE IS NO HOPE, THERE IS ONLY ME. ALL THE SAME MISTER DE GRAY SEEMS LIKE A NICE FELLOW. I HOPE HE WON'T BE DISAPPOINTED WHEN WE MEET. I HAVE ATTACHED A PICTURE OF AN AMUSING CAT.

>Human-level AI will probably emerge before 2040.

No, it wont. That is merely popsci bullshit.

His arguement isnt that in 50 years that immortality will be attained but rather that eventually anti-aging will outpace the aging itself essentially providing immortality (just not immediately)

SENS have actually produced results. A group they funded at Yale were published in Science magazine recently, a proof of concept they achieved was taken on by a start up (a treatment to prevent atherosclerosis by taking a bacterium gene, that breaks down cholesterol, and adding it to the artery wall in cell culture), they also have a panel of highly esteemed scientists (including Antony Atala, one of the World's leading tissue engineering experts) behind them. As for De Grey, it seems highly likely that he's earnest as he donated a shitload of money to his foundation, and no one can say that he isn't knowledgeable about biology.

>No, it wont. That is merely popsci bullshit.

It's no longer fringe belief, just to clarify. Renowned AI experts like Demis Hassabis, Shane Legg, Juergen Schmidhuber, Bart Selman, Yoshua Bengio, Geoff Hinton, Rich Sutton, Dileep George, Blaise Aguera y Arcas, and many more wholeheartedly disagree with you. If you don't recognize any of those names you probably aren't very well informed on machine learning in the first place.

Some of those people expect it even earlier, actually. DeepMind's co-founders (probably the most advanced AI research group on the planet) anticipate it by 2020-2025.

Eliezer Yudkowsky describes our current situation best:

>'This matches something I've previously named in private conversation as a warning sign - sharply above-trend performance at Go from a neural algorithm. What this indicates is not that deep learning in particular is going to be the Game Over algorithm. Rather, the background variables are looking more like "Human neural intelligence is not that complicated and current algorithms are touching on keystone, foundational aspects of it." What's alarming is not this particular breakthrough, but what it implies about the general background settings of the computational universe.'

Since 2000, many neuroscientists and AI researchers have formally defined intelligence. Several of those definitions may be accurate, and practical implementation could be a matter of scaled hardware rather than software. Strong AI by 2040 is no longer a fanciful prospect.

Yes they all agree that the computing power will become equal to humans, but the ability of that computing power and how effuiceintly it interprets information is a whole different ballpark. No, there will not be AI which can be comparable to humans by 2040. It is popsci bullshit. They take scientists opinions and misinterpret the meaning to inflate a concept.

Consciousness, a full human AI is centuries away mate. No one has defined consciousness yet. If you want something that can play chess, sure, but not a recreation of the human mind.

Actually, I have precise sources detailing expert opinions on human-level AI's emergence. I'll repost:

Shane Legg, co-founder of DeepMind (research group that beat Go):
youtube.com/watch?v=uCpFTtJgENs

Interview quote from Demis Hassabis, CEO of DeepMind:

>“If we look at the rate of progress and what we’ve seen in computers with AlphaGo coming on the scene and project that forward, I think it would be hard to say it will be very long until computers in general becomes stronger than humans. Not just AlphaGo, but looking at the success in deep learning and other areas. Machine learning and artificial intelligence research progress is very rapid at the moment. It seems to be only a matter of time now until we’ll see a program that’s stronger than humans.”

Paraphrased quotes from Demis Hassabis:
youtube.com/watch?v=Z1ytzW3Icig&feature=youtu.be&t=2152

Bart Selman (renowned computer science/AI professor):

>"There is general consensus within the AI research community that progress in the field is accelerating: it is believed that human-level AI will be reached within the next one or two decades. A key question is whether these advances will accelerate further after general human level AI is achieved, and, if so, how rapidly the next level of AI systems (super-human?) will be achieved."

Interview with Geoff Hinton:
theguardian.com/science/2015/may/21/google-a-step-closer-to-developing-machines-with-human-like-intelligence

AI expert survey regarding human-level AI's expected arrival (median answer was 2040):
nickbostrom.com/papers/survey.pdf

Talk snippet from Blaise Aguera y Arcas:
youtube.com/watch?v=iJ5Bum-H7rk&feature=youtu.be&t=1350

Presentation from Dileep George, neuroscientist and co-founder of Vicarious (expects human-level AI by 2035):
futureoflife.org/data/PDF/dileep_george.pdf

cont'd below

cont'd

Summary of AI's current capabilities and the gap to human-level, from machine learning researcher Vladimir Shakirov (predicts human-level AI by 2021):
sciencevsdeath.com/review-of-state-of-the-arts.pdf

Talk by Juergen Schmidhuber, esteemed AI researcher and original developer of LSTMs (predicts human-level AI by 2040):
youtube.com/watch?v=Ya9YfYveFXA

Another bit by Demis Hassabis, anticipating rat-level AI by the end of 2016 (human-level AI would line up with his 2020-2025 prediction in this case):
youtube.com/watch?v=MAMuNUixKJ8

It is no longer fringe belief to anticipate strong AI within 50 years, period. You can argue against it but you cannot treat it as pure pop-sci fantasy. These people are leaders in machine learning, not Kurzweil-esque cult leaders.

technologyreview.com/s/542371/a-tale-of-do-it-yourself-gene-therapy/
We'll see in 10 years

BASED LIZ

That's interesting.

Damn. So he's pretty serious about it. Hope he makes his dream comes true.

Not to be that guy who likes death (Because fuck that shit), or thinks the world is overcrowded or some other shit.

Like what are the true benefits for humanity if Grey's stuff works and the lifespan is extended to an indefinite amount?

is it so hard to think about this?

all the knowledge one accumulates in life doesn't suddenly die with the body it's in. people have indefinite amounts of time to accomplish tasks. people can master many different subjects and make greater horizontal contributions to fields.

The most brilliant minds will be able to continue being brilliant minds for centuries.

people will have to think long term.

no more "screw the planet cause I'll be dead in 100 years who cares".

Nobody can disprove I have magical elves up my ass either. It is not an accomplishment.

Only 7 processes seem to be responsible for damage accumulation and nobody has been able to disprove this.

plan = detailed analysis on the interventions needed to clear the damage

aubrey's damage approach is already producing results most notably in senescent cell clearance, he was talking about that a decade ago and now it's proven to increase lifespan in rodents. SENS funding is not very good, but the man has almost singlehandedly made rejuvenative medicine into a respected field.

Those are some nice trips.

Basically: , , Extra century tacked on to a person's life could change the world and most of what we think hugely. A society with slowed ageing or without it would be a beneficial one due to knowledge gained, people putting more investment into the future, people learning to do more things or do something they never done before.

And those are? I'd enjoy a good article to read.

>mfw I get another 100 years to shitpost on Veeky Forums

sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research

When the fuck does he expect some kind of trials on his stuff, or results for people?

when you give money

Soon I hope

He puts his best estimates at 2036-2041.

I hope he's right.

>tfw born just in time to get your life extended

Well that's only if it works. Even with life extension you gotta carry out your life in a way it won't get you killed other means: avoiding accidents, getting robbed/murdered, and etc.

Also those were just his estimates which he says is a 50/50.

Well that's a given, but hope is the last thing to die, and if I can hope that I can live and the people that I love can live longer, I will hope for it.

I honestly would be more concerned about diseases that are more likely to pop up the longer you live honestly, though as genetic engineering becomes better we have more chances overall.

Experts being overconfident isn't exactly new in the field of AI.

If we could get a gene from other species that are biological immortal, which one should we get?

jelly

Jellyfish.

I remember correctly there is one species that technically goes back to a younger state when it approaches its end.

>3rd Worlders get to live for centuries and continue to breed by the tens.

He gives that estimate with the stipulation that funding is slowing down progress by a factor of three.

no point in getting one from hydra or other jellyfish, they are too different to help us, and they don't become immortal by actually staying slowing down aging, they just cheat and revert back to a pubescent state.

We should look at species that are negligibly senescent, that's what we are looking to achieve for ourselves. Like turtles and some crocs.

>aging is cured
>want to get a job
>need at least 100 years of experience

this, exactly this

>trying to apply concepts from modular organisms to unitary organisms

i would say most of you in this thread are comparing apples and oranges, except that isn't even a reasonablly large measure of disparity

underrated.

Doesn't sound that bad unless you born post-ageing cured. Even then you had to be born a good 2-3 centuries post-ageing cured for this to happen.

Even then with ageing cured the birth rate would drop for countries with them, and you would find employment via connections with people who got anti-ageing.

tl:dr You don't have to worry about it, and neither does your greatx4 grandchildren.

>implying age is the first factor of death in the third world
>implying they'll get enough money for it
>implying it won't be declared absolutely haram

Theres ALWAYS someone in some secret lab

user you have a huge point.

I wonder how it will get regulated.
>if you want to be immortal you can't have kids
Is there anyone that would take the kids?