Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?

[David Jones]

Bob, their are serious issues with such a suggestion.

The biggest issue, is that there is a good chance it wouldn't work because
diseases, including the common cold, have incubation times. So, you may not
have any symptoms at all, yet you can pass it on to other people.

And even if we did know who was sick, are you really going to stay home for
2 weeks every time you get sick? If I were an employer, I would rather have
you come to work when you feel up to it.

Another point I've given to germaphobes is that let's say you are successful
at avoiding as many possible germs as possible and avoid getting sick as
much as possible. That means that you are likely not immune to some common
colds and such that you should be. So, when you are old and less capable,
your immune system will not be able to fight off the infection and you will
die an early death.

Dave

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Bob Mottram  wrote:

> On 10 August 2010 18:43, Bob Mottram  wrote:
> > here.  For example, if an epidemic breaks out, why should you
> > vaccinate first?
>
>
> That should have been "who" rather than "why" :-)
>
> Just thinking a little further, in hand waving mode, If something like
> the common cold were added as a status within social networks, and
> everyone was on the network it might even be possible to eliminate
> this disease simply by getting people to avoid those who are known to
> have it for a certain period of time - a sort of internet enabled
> smart avoidance strategy.  This wouldn't be a cure, but it could
> severely hamper the disease transmission mechanism, perhaps even to
> the extent of driving it to extinction.
>
>
> ---
> agi
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>



---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?

[Ben Goertzel]

> I should dredge up and forward past threads with them. There are some flaws
> in their chain of reasoning, so that it won't be all that simple to sort the
> few relevant from the many irrelevant mutations. There is both a huge amount
> of noise, and irrelevant adaptations to their environment and their
> treatment.
>

They have evolved many different populations in parallel, using the same
fitness criterion.  This provides powerful noise filtering



> Even when the relevant mutations are eventually identified, it isn't clear
> how that will map to usable therapies for the existing population.
>

yes, that's a complex matter


>
> Further, most of the things that kill us operate WAY too slowly to affect
> fruit flies, though there are some interesting dual-affecting problems.
>

Fruit flies get all the  major ailments that kill people frequently, except
cancer.  heart disease, neurodegenerative disease, respiratory problems,
immune problems, etc.



> As I have posted in the past, what we have here in the present human
> population is about the equivalent of a fruit fly population that was bred
> for the shortest possible lifespan.
>


Certainly not.  We have those fruit fly populations also, and analysis of
their genetics refutes your claim ;p ...



ben g



---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?

[Bob Mottram]

On 10 August 2010 18:43, Bob Mottram  wrote:
> here.  For example, if an epidemic breaks out, why should you
> vaccinate first?


That should have been "who" rather than "why" :-)

Just thinking a little further, in hand waving mode, If something like
the common cold were added as a status within social networks, and
everyone was on the network it might even be possible to eliminate
this disease simply by getting people to avoid those who are known to
have it for a certain period of time - a sort of internet enabled
smart avoidance strategy.  This wouldn't be a cure, but it could
severely hamper the disease transmission mechanism, perhaps even to
the extent of driving it to extinction.


---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?

[Bryan Bishop]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:25 AM, Steve Richfield wrote:

> Note my prior posting explaining my inability even to find a source of
> "used" mice for kids to use in high-school anti-aging experiments, all while
> university labs are now killing their vast numbers of such mice. So long as
> things remain THIS broken, anything that isn't part of the solution simply
> becomes a part of the very big problem, AIs included.


You might be inerested in this- I've been putting together an
adopt-a-lab-rat program that is actually an adoption program for lab mice.
In some cases mice that are used as a control group in experiments are then
discarded at the end of the program because, honestly, their lifetime is
over more or less, so the idea is that some people might be interested in
"adopting" these mice. Of course, you can also just pony up the $15 and get
one from Jackson Labs. I haven't fully launced adopt-a-lab-rat yet because I
am still trying to figure out how to avoid ending up in a situation where I
have hundreds of rats and rodents running around my apartment and I get the
short end of the stick (oops).

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507



---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?

[David Jones]

The think the biggest thing to remember here is that general AI could be
applied to many different problems in parallel by many different people.
They would help with many aspects of the problem solving process, not just a
single one and certainly not just applied to a single experiment/study.

I'm confident that Ben is aware of this


On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Bob Mottram  wrote:

> On 10 August 2010 16:44, Ben Goertzel  wrote:
> > I'm writing an article on the topic for H+ Magazine, which will appear in
> the next couple weeks ... I'll post a link to it when it appears
> >
> > I'm not advocating applying AI in the absence of new experiments of
> course.  I've been working closely with Genescient, applying AI tech to
> analyze the genomics of their long-lived superflies, so part of my message
> is about the virtuous cycle achievable via synergizing AI data analysis with
> carefully-designed experimental evolution of model organisms...
>
>
>
>
> Probably if I was going to apply AI in a medical context I'd
> prioritize those conditions which are both common and either fatal or
> have a severe impact on quality of life.  Also worthwhile would be
> using AI to try to discover drugs which have an equivalent effect to
> existing known ones but can be manufactured at a significantly lower
> cost, such that they are brought within the means of a larger fraction
> of the population.  Investigating aging is perfectly legitimate, but
> if you're trying to maximize your personal utility I'd regard it as a
> low priority compared to other more urgent medical issues which cause
> premature deaths.
>
> Also in the endeavor to extend life we need not focus entirely upon
> medical aspects.  The organizational problems of delivering known
> medications on a large scale is also a problem which AI could perhaps
> be used to optimize.  The way in which things like this are currently
> organized seems to be based upon some combination of tradition and
> intuitive hunches, so there may be low hanging fruit to be obtained
> here.  For example, if an epidemic breaks out, why should you
> vaccinate first?  If you have access to a social graph (from Facebook,
> or wherever) it's probably possible to calculate an optimal strategy.
>
>
> ---
> agi
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>



---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?

[Bob Mottram]

On 10 August 2010 16:44, Ben Goertzel  wrote:
> I'm writing an article on the topic for H+ Magazine, which will appear in the 
> next couple weeks ... I'll post a link to it when it appears
>
> I'm not advocating applying AI in the absence of new experiments of course.  
> I've been working closely with Genescient, applying AI tech to analyze the 
> genomics of their long-lived superflies, so part of my message is about the 
> virtuous cycle achievable via synergizing AI data analysis with 
> carefully-designed experimental evolution of model organisms...




Probably if I was going to apply AI in a medical context I'd
prioritize those conditions which are both common and either fatal or
have a severe impact on quality of life.  Also worthwhile would be
using AI to try to discover drugs which have an equivalent effect to
existing known ones but can be manufactured at a significantly lower
cost, such that they are brought within the means of a larger fraction
of the population.  Investigating aging is perfectly legitimate, but
if you're trying to maximize your personal utility I'd regard it as a
low priority compared to other more urgent medical issues which cause
premature deaths.

Also in the endeavor to extend life we need not focus entirely upon
medical aspects.  The organizational problems of delivering known
medications on a large scale is also a problem which AI could perhaps
be used to optimize.  The way in which things like this are currently
organized seems to be based upon some combination of tradition and
intuitive hunches, so there may be low hanging fruit to be obtained
here.  For example, if an epidemic breaks out, why should you
vaccinate first?  If you have access to a social graph (from Facebook,
or wherever) it's probably possible to calculate an optimal strategy.


---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?

[Steve Richfield]

Ben,

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Ben Goertzel  wrote:

>
> I'm writing an article on the topic for H+ Magazine, which will appear in
> the next couple weeks ... I'll post a link to it when it appears
>
> I'm not advocating applying AI in the absence of new experiments of
> course.  I've been working closely with Genescient, applying AI tech to
> analyze the genomics of their long-lived superflies, so part of my message
> is about the virtuous cycle achievable via synergizing AI data analysis with
> carefully-designed experimental evolution of model organisms...
>

I should dredge up and forward past threads with them. There are some flaws
in their chain of reasoning, so that it won't be all that simple to sort the
few relevant from the many irrelevant mutations. There is both a huge amount
of noise, and irrelevant adaptations to their environment and their
treatment. Even when the relevant mutations are eventually identified, it
isn't clear how that will map to usable therapies for the existing
population.

Perhaps you remember the old Star Trek episode about the long-lived
population that was still locked in a war after hundreds of years? The
episode devolved into a dispute over the potential value of this discovery -
was there something valuable in the environment, or did they just evolve to
live longer? Here, the long-lived population isn't even human.

Further, most of the things that kill us operate WAY too slowly to affect
fruit flies, though there are some interesting dual-affecting problems.
Unfortunately, it isn't as practical to autopsy fruit flies as it is to
autopsy people to see what killed them.

As I have posted in the past, what we have here in the present human
population is about the equivalent of a fruit fly population that was bred
for the shortest possible lifespan. Our social practices could hardly do
worse. Our present challenge is to get to where fruit flies were before Rose
first bred them for long life.

I strongly suspect that we have some early-killer mutations, e.g. to people
off as quickly as possible after they pass child-bearing age, which itself
is probably being shortened through our bizarre social habits of mating
like-aged people. Genescient's approach holds no promise of identifying
THOSE genes, and identifying the other genes won't help at all until those
killer genes are first silenced.

In short, there are some really serious challenges to Genescient's approach.
I expect success for several other quarters long before Genescient bears
real-world usable fruit. I suspect that these challenges, along with the
ubiquitous shortage of funding will keep Genescient out of producing
real-world usable results pretty much forever.

Future AGI output: "Fund aging research."

Update on studying more of Burzynski's papers: His is not a "cancer cure" at
all. What he is doing is removing gene-silencing methylization from the DNA,
and letting nature take its course, e.g. having their immune systems kill
the cancer via aptosis. In short, it is a real-world anti-aging approach
that has snuck in "under the radar". OF COURSE any real-world working
anti-aging approach would kill cancer! How good is his present product? Who
knows? It sure looks to me like this is a valid approach, and I suspect that
any bugs will get worked out in time. WATCH THIS. This looks to me like it
will work in the real-world long before any other of the present popular
approaches stand a chance of working. After all, it sure seems to be working
on some people with really extreme gene silencing - called cancer.

Steve



---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts

[Mike Tintner]

[from:

Concept-Rich Mathematics Instruction]



Teacher: Very good. Now, look at this drawing

and explain what you see. [Draws.]

Debora: It's a pie with three pieces.

Teacher: Tell us about the pieces.

Debora: Three thirds.

Teachers: What is the difference among the pieces?

Debora: This is the largest third, and here is the smallest . . .

Sound familiar? Have you ever wondered why students often

understand mathematics in a very rudimentary and prototypical

way, why even rich and exciting hands-on types of active learning

do not always result in "real" learning of new concepts? From

the psycho-educational perspective, these are the critical questions.

In other words, epistemology is valuable to the extent that

it helps us find ways to enable students who come with preconceived

and misconceived ideas to understand a framework of

scientific and mathematical concepts.

Constructivism: A New Perspective

At the dawn of behaviorism, constructivism became the most

dominant epistemology in education. The purest forms of this

philosophy profess that knowledge is not passively received

either through the senses or by way of communication, just as

meaning is not explicitly out there for grabs. Rather, constructivists

generally agree that knowledge is actively built up by a

"cognizing" human who needs to adapt to what is fit and viable

(von Glasersfeld, 1995). Thus, there is no dispute among constructivists

over the premise that one's knowledge is in a constant

state of flux because humans are subject to an ever-changing

reality (Jaworski, 1994, p. 16).

Although constructivists generally regard understanding as

the outcome of an active process, constructivists still argue

over the nature of the process of knowing. Is knowing simply

a matter of recall? Does learning new concepts reflect additive

or structural cognitive changes? Is the process of knowing

concepts built from the "bottom up," or can it be a "top-down"

process? How does new conceptual knowledge depend on

experience? How does conceptual knowledge relate to procedural

knowledge? And, can teachers mediate conceptual

development?

| Concept-Rich Mathematics Instruction

Is Learning New Concepts Simply a Mechanism

of Memorization and Recall?

Science and mathematics educators have become increasingly

aware that our understanding of conceptual change is at least as

important as the analysis of the concepts themselves. In fact, a

plethora of research has established that concepts are mental

structures of intellectual relationships, not simply a subject matter.

The research indicates that the mental structures of intellectual

relationships that make up mental concepts organize human

experiences and human memory (Bartsch, 1998). Therefore, conceptual

changes represent structural cognitive changes, not simply

additive changes. Based on the research in cognitive psychology,

the attention of research in education has been shifting from the

content (e.g., mathematical concepts) to the mental predicates,

language, and preconcepts. Despite the research, many teachers

continue to approach new concepts as if they were simply addons

to their students' existing knowledge-a subject of memorization

and recall. This practice may well be one of the causes of

misconceptions in mathematics.

Structural Cognitive Change

The notion of structural cognitive change, or schematic change,

was first introduced in the field of psychology (by Bartlett, who

studied memory in the 1930s). It became one of the basic tenets

of constructivism. Researchers in mathematics education picked

up on this term and have been leaning heavily on it since the

1960s, following Skemp (1962), Minsky (1975), and Davis (1984).

The generally accepted idea among researchers in the field, as

stated by Skemp (1986, p. 43), is that in mathematics, "to understand

something is to assimilate it into an appropriate schema."

A structural cognitive change is not merely an appendage. It

involves the whole network of interrelated operational and

conceptual schemata. Structural changes are pervasive, central,

and permanent.

The first characteristic of structural change refers to its pervasive

nature. That is, new experiences do not have a limited

effect, but cause the entire cognitive structure to rearrange itself.

Vygotsky (1986, p. 167) argued,

It was shown and proved experimentally that mental development

does not coincide with the development of separate psychological

functions, but rather depends on changing relations between them.

The development of each function, in turn, depends upon the

progress in the development of the interfunctional system.



From: Jim Bromer 
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:11 PM
To: agi 
Subject: [agi] Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts


On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, John G. Rose  wrote:

  > -Original Message-
  > From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com]
  >
  >  how would these diverse examples
  > be w

Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?

[David Jones]

Steve,

Capable and effective AI systems would be very helpful at every step of the
research process. Basic research is a major area I think that AGI will be
applied to. In fact, that's exactly where I plan to apply it first.

Dave

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Steve Richfield
wrote:

> Ben,
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Ben Goertzel  wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm speaking there, on Ai applied to life extension; and participating in
>> a panel discussion on narrow vs. general AI...
>>
>> Having some interest, expertise, and experience in both areas, I find it
> hard to imagine much interplay at all.
>
> The present challenge is wrapped up in a lack of basic information,
> resulting from insufficient funds to do the needed experiments.
> Extrapolations have already gone WAY beyond the data, and new methods to
> push extrapolations even further wouldn't be worth nearly as much as just a
> little more hard data.
>
> Just look at Aubrey's long list of aging mechanisms. We don't now even know
> which predominate, or which cause others. Further, there are new candidates
> arising every year, e.g. Burzynski's theory that most aging is secondary to
> methylation of DNA receptor sites, or my theory that Aubrey's entire list
> could be explained by people dropping their body temperatures later in life.
> There are LOTS of other theories, and without experimental results, there is
> absolutely no way, AI or not, to sort the wheat from the chaff.
>
> Note that one of the front runners, the cosmic ray theory, could easily be
> tested by simply raising some mice in deep tunnels. This is high-school
> level stuff, yet with NO significant funding for aging research, it remains
> undone.
>
> Note my prior posting explaining my inability even to find a source of
> "used" mice for kids to use in high-school anti-aging experiments, all while
> university labs are now killing their vast numbers of such mice. So long as
> things remain THIS broken, anything that isn't part of the solution simply
> becomes a part of the very big problem, AIs included.
>
> The best that an AI could seemingly do is to pronounce "Fund and facilitate
> basic aging research" and then suspend execution pending an interrupt
> indicating that the needed experiments have been done.
>
> Could you provide some hint as to where you are going with this?
>
> Steve
>
>*agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour Subscription
> 
>



---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?

[Ben Goertzel]

I'm writing an article on the topic for H+ Magazine, which will appear in
the next couple weeks ... I'll post a link to it when it appears

I'm not advocating applying AI in the absence of new experiments of course.
I've been working closely with Genescient, applying AI tech to analyze the
genomics of their long-lived superflies, so part of my message is about the
virtuous cycle achievable via synergizing AI data analysis with
carefully-designed experimental evolution of model organisms...

-- Ben

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Steve Richfield
wrote:

> Ben,
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Ben Goertzel  wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm speaking there, on Ai applied to life extension; and participating in
>> a panel discussion on narrow vs. general AI...
>>
>> Having some interest, expertise, and experience in both areas, I find it
> hard to imagine much interplay at all.
>
> The present challenge is wrapped up in a lack of basic information,
> resulting from insufficient funds to do the needed experiments.
> Extrapolations have already gone WAY beyond the data, and new methods to
> push extrapolations even further wouldn't be worth nearly as much as just a
> little more hard data.
>
> Just look at Aubrey's long list of aging mechanisms. We don't now even know
> which predominate, or which cause others. Further, there are new candidates
> arising every year, e.g. Burzynski's theory that most aging is secondary to
> methylation of DNA receptor sites, or my theory that Aubrey's entire list
> could be explained by people dropping their body temperatures later in life.
> There are LOTS of other theories, and without experimental results, there is
> absolutely no way, AI or not, to sort the wheat from the chaff.
>
> Note that one of the front runners, the cosmic ray theory, could easily be
> tested by simply raising some mice in deep tunnels. This is high-school
> level stuff, yet with NO significant funding for aging research, it remains
> undone.
>
> Note my prior posting explaining my inability even to find a source of
> "used" mice for kids to use in high-school anti-aging experiments, all while
> university labs are now killing their vast numbers of such mice. So long as
> things remain THIS broken, anything that isn't part of the solution simply
> becomes a part of the very big problem, AIs included.
>
> The best that an AI could seemingly do is to pronounce "Fund and facilitate
> basic aging research" and then suspend execution pending an interrupt
> indicating that the needed experiments have been done.
>
> Could you provide some hint as to where you are going with this?
>
> Steve
>
>*agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour Subscription
> 
>



-- 
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
CTO, Genescient Corp
Vice Chairman, Humanity+
Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute
External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China
b...@goertzel.org

"I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are
to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very
charming thing too." -- Fyodor Dostoevsky



---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Nao Nao

[David Jones]

Way too pessimistic in my opinion.

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:06 PM, John G. Rose wrote:

> Aww, so cute.
>
>
>
> I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays
> sensory information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all
> collecting personal data in a massive multi-agent geo-distributed
> robo-network.
>
>
>
> So cuddly!
>
>
>
> And I wonder if it receives and executes commands, commands that come in
> over the network from whatever interested corporation or government pays the
> most for access.
>
>
>
> Such a sweet little friendly Nao. Everyone should get one :)
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk]
>
>
>
> An unusually sophisticated (& somewhat expensive) promotional robot vid:
>
>
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7934318/Nao-the-robot-that-expresses-and-detects-emotions.html
>
> *agi* | Archives 
> | 
> ModifyYour Subscription
>
> 
>
>
>   *agi* | Archives 
>  | 
> ModifyYour Subscription
> 
>



---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Anyone going to the Singularity Summit?

[Steve Richfield]

Ben,

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Ben Goertzel  wrote:

>
> I'm speaking there, on Ai applied to life extension; and participating in a
> panel discussion on narrow vs. general AI...
>
> Having some interest, expertise, and experience in both areas, I find it
hard to imagine much interplay at all.

The present challenge is wrapped up in a lack of basic information,
resulting from insufficient funds to do the needed experiments.
Extrapolations have already gone WAY beyond the data, and new methods to
push extrapolations even further wouldn't be worth nearly as much as just a
little more hard data.

Just look at Aubrey's long list of aging mechanisms. We don't now even know
which predominate, or which cause others. Further, there are new candidates
arising every year, e.g. Burzynski's theory that most aging is secondary to
methylation of DNA receptor sites, or my theory that Aubrey's entire list
could be explained by people dropping their body temperatures later in life.
There are LOTS of other theories, and without experimental results, there is
absolutely no way, AI or not, to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Note that one of the front runners, the cosmic ray theory, could easily be
tested by simply raising some mice in deep tunnels. This is high-school
level stuff, yet with NO significant funding for aging research, it remains
undone.

Note my prior posting explaining my inability even to find a source of
"used" mice for kids to use in high-school anti-aging experiments, all while
university labs are now killing their vast numbers of such mice. So long as
things remain THIS broken, anything that isn't part of the solution simply
becomes a part of the very big problem, AIs included.

The best that an AI could seemingly do is to pronounce "Fund and facilitate
basic aging research" and then suspend execution pending an interrupt
indicating that the needed experiments have been done.

Could you provide some hint as to where you are going with this?

Steve



---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com