Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

bbc.com

211–220 of 344 posts

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

#211

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…

The skepticism is totally warranted, but you have to really consider the strides made in just 100 years. There's practically a Moore's Law of medicine happening.

We're still really dumb about a lot of things related to natural mortality, but exponentially smarter and more capable than we were 50 and then 200 years ago.

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

#212
post #209
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And again, trolley problems... There is $3B on on one track, with a note pinned to the top.. "To cure all diseases - A train is barreling down. On the other track lies you, with a hoodie and a ham sandwich. Watching to the side is HN... HN can pull the switch and change the points, thereby saving the $3B, but killing you... in the hope the $3B will cure all disease. On the other hand HN can say screw the cash and let…

Are you actually replying to me, or are you... what the hell are you talking about?

I was making an abstract defense in your favor based on the parent comment where someone appeared to be claiming you had neither the power nor the cash to have any say in the matter.

For all we know you might have billions or a machine for curing all diseases already working. (Or be MarkZ).

Yes, probably time for my bed, it's rather late. And far too late for moral philosophy.

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

#214
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree that you can only compare difficulty after the fact. The full class of cancers is an object of lots higher complexity than quantum mechanics. For one, you need a theory of quantum mechanics to fully predict from the details of a cell (this is not the same thing as saying cells leverage entanglement and maintain superpositions). A population of cells is more complex than an atom as it requires more…

> The full class of cancers is an object of lots higher complexity than quantum mechanics. Could you elaborate as to why you believe that? Having worked on both biological and physical simulations the limits from a ground-up perspective are quite similar. While there are no well-understood analytic forms to describe biological systems, unlike in quantum systems, the fundamentals of the problem are the same: we can't…

You see the problem yourself by pointing out the required increase in computational capacity. Quantum mechanics can be described and predicted using fairly straight forward mathematics. Its descriptive complexity is lower than for a cancer whose functioning is a non-linear dynamical system not at thermodynamic equilibrium and changes in time. It's true that for QM, the computational complexity quickly goes up beyond toy harmonic oscillator problems but in a search for a theory, the descriptive complexity and number of fundamental parameters per observation is what controls search time.

We also don't know to what extent quantum computation would aid predictive modeling of protein interactions. It's possible that there are no leaks at the classical level of abstraction as to hurt predictability. But the problem still remains that experiments to fix parameters are hurt by the fact that the system is changing under you and interacts in a complex way with its environment which can't be known ahead of time. So the computational complexity is not necessarily easier (in a practical sense) even if we assume that there is no utility in modeling quantum effects.

One very theoretical idea of solving cancer (per cancer) would involve searching for a 'problem', an insult, outside of the learnability class of evolution which also does not harm healthy cells. This is computationally likely harder than BQP. Anything less, even if equipped with a quantum computer, would be evolved out of and with any survivors less attackable. Any way you look at it, it is a far harder problem than working out fission.

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

#215

Not to take the wind out of anyone's sails, but there is a concern to be raised about relying more and more on charities to fund the public good. When a democratically elected government funds the public good, at least in theory, the public at large has a small say in choosing what counts as "public good". When you leave it to charity, you're relying on the morals of individual wealthy donors to decide what counts as…

Why do you assume that government politicians and bureaucrats have a higher moral position to decide what counts as public good?

I never assumed that.

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

#216
Saw this on Reddit, maybe someone can comment:

---

From Wikipedia:

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is not a charitable trust or a private foundation but a limited liability company which can be for-profit, spend money on lobbying, make political donations, will not have to disclose its pay to its top five executives and have fewer other transparency requirements, compared to a charitable trust. Under this legal structure, as Forbes wrote it, "Zuckerberg will still control the Facebook shares owned by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative".

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

#217
post #131

I know it's more of a western problem, but it would be good if someone could find some real solutions to the obesity crisis. If you ask many GPs in the west they will tell you that a majority of illnesses they address are related to weight and diet. With an aging, increasingly overweight adult population alongside a sharp rise in child obesity come big consequences for health care over the next half century. Im not s…

Um, I know a solution to the obesity crisis....

I knew a solution to changing the TV channel, it didn't mean the remote control wasn't a welcome invention.

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

#218
post #74

Not sure why there is a lot of negativity here. It doesn't seem that ridiculous of a goal. I think by 2100 we will have extremely powerful AI that will make fighting diseases extremely easy compared to methods available today. To be honest, it seems like an achievable goal. I wish Zuckerberg and Chan the best in this.

I think by 2100 we will have extremely powerful AI that will make fighting diseases extremely easy compared to methods available today. Right. Just like the jetpacks and lunar colonies we have easy access to now, as promised in the 1960s.

Would you trade the development of the internet for jetpacks? I wouldn't.

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

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm struggling to see how that can be done without in vivo genetic engineering (to ensure immune compatibility), constant blood surveillance of the population (to detect pathogens), chemical infusions deployed en masse like a firmware update, and giant cube-shaped space ships.

We'd have to develop an external assay that can ensure immune compatibility. If we're lucky, we find a finite set of molecules that lead to immune incompatibilities from person to person and make an assay that focuses on those molecules.

Constant blood surveillance is already a fact--that is, perhaps we don't need more blood. Instead, we just do the immune sequencing on the stream that's already available. Spread out over the whole population, that's a lot of information. Firmware updates, if necessary, could be handled on an as-needed basis, or more generally like flu vaccines.

I'm not sure how the giant cube-shaped space ships will be handled--that's definitely a hurdle to consider.

Post reply on HN