141–150 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is what modern AI is - neat linear algebra that can perform certain tasks that are commonly associated with human cognition.
How and when did this become the definition of AI? I feel like we techies lost an important distinction by simply accepting the marketing appropriation of the term. What do we now call real AI?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like: Phase I: Will this treatment immediately kill people? Phase II: Does this methodology seem like the right methodology to show some sort of result in larger trials? Phase III: Does the treatment work better than some type of placebo for at least a few weeks without causing obvious and unjustifiable harms during those few weeks. Phase IV: Let's shift our marketing budget into R&D so that we can claim to be u…
This is a super pessimistic and misleading description of phase 2 & 3 trials; actual efficacious drugs do come out of the FDA review process. Many phase 3 trials are against standard of care rather than placebo and many are longer than a few weeks, particularly for treatments where efficacy is hard to prove.
Yeah but they (usually) don't have to be tested against the existing standard of care, or tested longer than a few weeks. So really it's misleading to claim that Phase III trials guarantee anything other than the extremely minimal standard of safety and efficacy that they actually guarantee.
There is a real possibility that in the next few decades some of these therapies might work. The book Lifespan by Dr David Sinclair is really interesting. Sinclair is a professor at Harvard. He's highly optimistic that something will come of the various ideas looking at slowing aging. https://www.amazon.com/Lifespan-Why-Age_and-Dont-Have/dp/150...
So when it happens, will we stop having kids? Because our current population and lifestyle do not seem sustainable. I only see population increasing and lifestyle being more burdensome on environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
red meat is a good source of heme iron and vitamin b12. I agree with my coworker, a little steak a few days every month is good for you.
Heme iron is toxic. [0] B12 you can get from a pill. The same stuff they inject into beef. [1] So if you skip eating red meat, you can avoid the toxins from cooking, such as HCA and PAH [2], the exogenous cholesterol, atherosclerotic carnitine [3], hormones, etc. I think that's a better way to get B12. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03784... [1] http://eerainuh.com/supplementation-of-vitam…
If you feed cows corn all day every day, yes they need B12 injections. I buy beef from a local butcher and the beef comes from our local farm of pasture-raised cows. It's more expensive but because of this it limits my beef intake to a few times a month.
There is a real possibility that in the next few decades some of these therapies might work. The book Lifespan by Dr David Sinclair is really interesting. Sinclair is a professor at Harvard. He's highly optimistic that something will come of the various ideas looking at slowing aging. https://www.amazon.com/Lifespan-Why-Age_and-Dont-Have/dp/150...
So when it happens, will we stop having kids? Because our current population and lifestyle do not seem sustainable. I only see population increasing and lifestyle being more burdensome on environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So when it happens, will we stop having kids? Because our current population and lifestyle do not seem sustainable. I only see population increasing and lifestyle being more burdensome on environment.
Just let immortal people have no more than one kid. That way the population (of immortals) can double at most.
There is a real possibility that in the next few decades some of these therapies might work. The book Lifespan by Dr David Sinclair is really interesting. Sinclair is a professor at Harvard. He's highly optimistic that something will come of the various ideas looking at slowing aging. https://www.amazon.com/Lifespan-Why-Age_and-Dont-Have/dp/150...
So when it happens, will we stop having kids? Because our current population and lifestyle do not seem sustainable. I only see population increasing and lifestyle being more burdensome on environment.
I imagine people with access to anti aging therapies would postpone having children further and further.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tend to think of aging as an overall degradation of the system. For instance, there’s loss of hair cells in the ear that reduces hearing higher frequencies. There’s clouding of the eye lens as the proteins there aggregate. Long lived cells like neurons accumulate oxidation and probably die at some slow rate. I can’t quite see how drugs which modulate existing biochemical pathways can stop, let alone reverse the pro…
> I can’t quite see how drugs which modulate existing biochemical pathways can stop, let alone reverse the processes I’ve named. I'm honestly mystified why this would be a mystery. Your cells have the blueprint to grow a whole new body, but clearly many of these pathways are dormant. Is it really so far fetched that a drug could reactivate some of these pathways? Like, why is there a loss of hair in the ear when for…
DNA is not enough. There was coordination in time and space to construct the body during development, and the growing body has no damaged cells and structures to deal with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tend to think of aging as an overall degradation of the system. For instance, there’s loss of hair cells in the ear that reduces hearing higher frequencies. There’s clouding of the eye lens as the proteins there aggregate. Long lived cells like neurons accumulate oxidation and probably die at some slow rate. I can’t quite see how drugs which modulate existing biochemical pathways can stop, let alone reverse the pro…
> I tend to think of aging as an overall degradation of the system Why do you do that? Why would you think it is correct? To my knowledge that's a wrong interpretation. Yes there is constant continuous damage to DNA and cells etc. But the body has mechanisms to repair that damage. It is the repairment that slows down during aging, and that is programmed by genetic and biological processes, like everything else in the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can’t quite see how drugs which modulate existing biochemical pathways can stop, let alone reverse the processes I’ve named. I'm honestly mystified why this would be a mystery. Your cells have the blueprint to grow a whole new body, but clearly many of these pathways are dormant. Is it really so far fetched that a drug could reactivate some of these pathways? Like, why is there a loss of hair in the ear when for…
The body forms structures over the course of development. But I don’t think it can replay those actions again. In places like the knee and eye lens, the cells that formed those structures did their job and dissolved their nuclei. I’m more familiar with the eye lens example so let’s go with that. The cells there are just bags of proteins and antioxidants. No nuclei, no mitochondria, no activity. Oxidation from the env…
Also, the cornea does heal from some damage, so clearly it's not just passive tissue.