I’m living forever, goddammit! :mad:
This is a perfect illustration of the problem. We have no idea how the human mechanisms could be any different from those of other mammals. But yet, the evidence is incontrovertible that, whether we understand it or not, there is a fairly big difference. We clearly don’t even know the right questions to ask yet.
What about the bowhead whale?
Then send me all of your money.
Now, I expect that by your set of calculations, the chance that you will not regret doing so would turn out to be so clsoe to zero that a 10-place calcuator could not tell the duifference.
I expect the same from my set of calculations.
The chance would nevertheless be >zero percent, so I would have something to “bank” on. 
I’m sorry, but your assertion that humans live 4 times longer than they should is just not supported by the facts.
Captive chimps live about 50-60 years, on average. Given their higher metabolic rate and smaller body size, that fits pretty well with the typical human life span of roughly 80 years.
Mice live about 2-3 years in captivity, on average. Given their smaller size and higher metabolic rate, they still aren’t that much shorter-lived than you would expect, comparing them with humans.
So like I said before, planned senescence is probably very similar in all mammals.
I’d take that bet. Moore’s Law has already peaked; growth rate has been slowing for several years now as hardware engineers begin running into ineluctable physical limitations. Furthermore, you’ve been restating a popular misunderstanding; Moore’s Law is an observation that transistor density on ICs has tended to double every two years. It has nothing to do with speed.
But that aside, if you think that just making computers faster by any degree will make it possible for us to solve the human aging problem, you simply don’t understand computing. “AI” in the sense you seem to imagine does not exist, and slow computers ain’t what’s holding us back.
People have been betting against the increases in computer performance for the last 40+ years, and it hasn’t stopped yet. Quantum computing has yet to show its possible might, so again, I’m making no assumptions.
Mmkay. good luck with betting against advances in AI. ROFL
I remember the days when people talked about “maybe one day a computer can beat a chess grandmaster”. That’s old hat now. Even AI winning Jeopardy is old news. ROFL
Does Thailand cover immortality under their UHC plan?
I’ve also heard in the next few decades we could have treatments that extend life by 20-60 years. But I have no idea if they will ever make the jump from animal models to safe, reliable interventions for humans in the next few decades.
How long is the oldest possible age I may live to?
Jeanne Calment made it to a verifiable 122. Hers is the record to shoot for.
Just for grins, the wife and I used to send her a birthday card every year. We’d simply address it to “Jeanne Calment, World’s Oldest Living Person, Arles, France,” and it never came back to us. One year while looking at cards, I found one that said something like: “There may be people richer than you, and there may be people older than you …” Uh-oh! Couldn’t send that one.
Oops! I just remembered you already had that age listed in your OP. So I guess you answered your own question.
It’s not really a fair bet when it’s already happened. Moore’s law is peaking as we speak. You may not be making overt assumptions, but your whole angle rests of pure speculation. Quantum computing might be revolutionary but not in the way you seem to think.
Both of these things are far, far simpler than the mythical “strong” AI or the kind of simulated domain expert that could be unleashed on a detailed model of human physiology and somehow discover the cure for aging. They are so much simpler that it’s absolutely absurd to talk about differences of “degree.”
Winning at chess is classic game theory; the method for selecting best moves from a decision tree is relatively straightforward. The cleverness has all been a matter of applying good heuristics to prune the tree, which is much too large for even the machines of today to exhaustively search. Playing chess is an excellent example of a problem where increasing your computing power trivially increases the quality of your results. Again, that’s because the problem is so simple.
Watson, the Jeopardy AI, is an awesome example of a knowledge search engine coupled with some natural language processing – but it’s a pile of hacks specifically built, engineered, and tweaked to be good at only one thing: pulling out desired information from common Jeopardy clues. The distance by which it falls short of being real “intelligence” can be gauged by the answers it gives – a real “understanding” of the information would never result in responses like “What is leg?” or identifying Toronto as a U.S. city – but mere correlation and collocation would.
I’m not “betting against advances in AI.” I’m pointing out that the thing you seem to be basing your speculations on does not exist yet, and it’s not even on the horizon. Increasing computing power will make the systems we’ve already come up with faster, but it doesn’t help us directly to come up with the underpinnings of “truly” intelligent systems.
Here’s the thing–people have been talking about strong AI for a long time now…but if Moore’s Law can hang on for another 10 years or so, we’ll actually have computers that equal the human brain in processing power. that would be a game-changer. As to whether Moore’s law will continue, I have no idea. Maybe it will stop and start back up. Who knows?
HUH?
The human brain is not made of silicon, and its processing power is not binary. It works totally differently–with massive parallel processes all taking place at once. No matter how fast computers become, (due to your beloved Moore’s law), they will still be based on binary switches flashing in consecutive order. That’s not equal to a human brain. It is vastly better than a human brain at certain activities, but inferior to a brain at other activities.
There’s an old expression: Both a computer and a person can play a great game of chess. But only the human being can enjoy it.
Computers have been beating humans at processing power for over fifty years now. Processing power isn’t all you need for AI.
do tell.
I agree that processing power isn’t ALL you need. However, enough processing power can make up for lacks in heuristics.
I’m not asking who the record to beat is, I’m asking how long is it possible to lice for. Can I beat her? If so, by how much?
I intend to beat her record. I’ll let you know.