Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 344 posts

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#161

Post by idlewords »

iaw wrote: post #124
nixos wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is _much_ (orders of magnitude) easier than curing Cancer

Arguable. We can only compare difficulty after the fact, if Einstein hadn't rolled along with relativity and 3 decade gap for research, the atomic bomb wouldn't have been possible. There may be a 'relativity' level discovery in biology/aging/cancer that will change the historic perspective. We can't know until after the fact.

You don't need Einstein or relativity theory to build an atomic bomb. Experimentalists discovered fission, and could have built a bomb even if there were no theoretical basis for it.

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#162

Post by [deleted] »

user731955373 wrote: post #90
kendallpark wrote: post #75

I'm glad they're putting money into medical research, but I kinda roll my eyes when people make big claims about curing X, especially when X is something incredibly broad like "cancer" or in this case, "all diseases." AI/ML has barely scratched the surface of its potential in medicine, however, I find it naive to think that you can throw AI/ML at any random disease and always get a cure. Even after a century. Will we…

"yes we can!" built the atomic bomb.

[deleted]

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#163

Post by jonny_eh »

dhbradshaw wrote: post #156
kendallpark wrote: post #75

I'm glad they're putting money into medical research, but I kinda roll my eyes when people make big claims about curing X, especially when X is something incredibly broad like "cancer" or in this case, "all diseases." AI/ML has barely scratched the surface of its potential in medicine, however, I find it naive to think that you can throw AI/ML at any random disease and always get a cure. Even after a century. Will we…

Here's my best prediction for how it's could happen: when the all human immune systems are able to learn from each other, we'll be most of the way there. The immune system is at the center of most human diseases. Cancer? It's the best solution. Infection? Best solution. Autoimmune disease?Fixing the immune system would be the best solution to autoimmune disease. Right now, if you want your body to be immune to someth…

> Autoimmune disease?Fixing the immune system would be the best solution to autoimmune disease

Zuckerberg should give you all his money.

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#164

Post by sanderjd »

grownseed wrote: post #142

These acts of apparent philanthropy from ridiculously wealthy people rub me the wrong way. It feels like those rich patrons from older times who would bestow their "generosity" as they pleased, except that in modern times most countries have frameworks in place to make this sort of work happen, and these rich people choose to ignore them, or worse, disparage them. Companies like Facebook (and people like Mark Zuckerb…

I think peoples' perspectives on this are basically divided by the question of who they think is more effective at using these pools of money: foundations run by certain wealthy people, or governments. I've waffled on this question my whole adult life, but now more than ever, I'm pretty happy that, for instance, the donors to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation were able to donate all that money, instead of seeing it under the control of the current (or last few iterations of the) US congress...

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#165

Post by nextos »

dhbradshaw wrote: post #156
kendallpark wrote: post #75

I'm glad they're putting money into medical research, but I kinda roll my eyes when people make big claims about curing X, especially when X is something incredibly broad like "cancer" or in this case, "all diseases." AI/ML has barely scratched the surface of its potential in medicine, however, I find it naive to think that you can throw AI/ML at any random disease and always get a cure. Even after a century. Will we…

Here's my best prediction for how it's could happen: when the all human immune systems are able to learn from each other, we'll be most of the way there. The immune system is at the center of most human diseases. Cancer? It's the best solution. Infection? Best solution. Autoimmune disease?Fixing the immune system would be the best solution to autoimmune disease. Right now, if you want your body to be immune to someth…

It is. That's why immunotherapies have gone from a fringe area to something super hot attracting tons of funding.

But first, we need to understand the cell. For this we believe we need not only statistical learning, but also formal methods. See e.g. a slightly dated but brilliant paper from Luca Cardelli:

http://lucacardelli.name/Papers/Abstract%20Machines%20of%20S...

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#166

Post by sanderjd »

socmag wrote: post #145
aestetix wrote: post #102

Step 1: shut down Facebook.

Sorry to see you got downvoted for voicing your opinion. Remember, Stockholm Syndrome is a disease.

That opinion adds nothing to the current discussion. This isn't just an open "tell us any random opinion you might have!" forum; the idea is to contribute thoughts relevant to the topic.

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#167

Post by johansch »

pmoriarty wrote: post #148
johansch wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mark ("and Priscilla") are pledging $3B. The Manhattan project cost was "about $26 billion in 2016 dollars" according to the Wikipedia article. They are short $23B.

"They are short $23B." That's where this part comes in: "The more people believe we can cure all disease in our children's lifetimes, the more likely the government is to invest in it"

They (Government-sponsored scientists) were already working on all of these things.

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#168

Post by cmdrfred »

user731955373 wrote: post #90
kendallpark wrote: post #75

I'm glad they're putting money into medical research, but I kinda roll my eyes when people make big claims about curing X, especially when X is something incredibly broad like "cancer" or in this case, "all diseases." AI/ML has barely scratched the surface of its potential in medicine, however, I find it naive to think that you can throw AI/ML at any random disease and always get a cure. Even after a century. Will we…

"yes we can!" built the atomic bomb.

Do you have a E=MC2 sort of revelation in regards to cancer?

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#169

Post by bsder »

user731955373 wrote: post #90
kendallpark wrote: post #75

I'm glad they're putting money into medical research, but I kinda roll my eyes when people make big claims about curing X, especially when X is something incredibly broad like "cancer" or in this case, "all diseases." AI/ML has barely scratched the surface of its potential in medicine, however, I find it naive to think that you can throw AI/ML at any random disease and always get a cure. Even after a century. Will we…

"yes we can!" built the atomic bomb.

Only by turning almost 10% OF AN ENTIRE COUNTRY into doing nothing but producing an atomic bomb.

That's not 2 billion dollars, that's 2 TRILLION dollars.

So, basically, redirecting the US military budget. I approve.

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#170

Post by euyyn »

BurningFrog wrote: post #116
kendallpark wrote: post #75

I'm glad they're putting money into medical research, but I kinda roll my eyes when people make big claims about curing X, especially when X is something incredibly broad like "cancer" or in this case, "all diseases." AI/ML has barely scratched the surface of its potential in medicine, however, I find it naive to think that you can throw AI/ML at any random disease and always get a cure. Even after a century. Will we…

I think the current medical research system is badly broken in several ways, and it's possible that a few billions spent on alternative approaches would bear a lot of fruit. It might also not, but I'm very glad if someone tries.

What approaches do you mean? In which ways do you think it's broken?
Post reply on HN