3

turchin comments on [Draft] Fighting Aging as an Effective Altruism Cause - Effective Altruism Forum

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (38)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: turchin 17 April 2018 12:41:29AM *  0 points [-]

Thank you for review.

Taking median date of the AI arrival like 2062 is not informative as in half cases it will not be here at 2062. The date of 2100 is taken as the date when it (or other powerful life-extending technology) almost sure will appear as a very conservative estimate. Maybe it should be justified more in the text.

Yes, it is assumed by Barzilai and gwern that metformin will extend human life 1 year, based on many human cohorts studies, but to actually prove it we need TAME study, and until this study is finished, metformin can't be used as a life-extending drug. So any year of delay of the experiment means a year in the delay in global implementation. For now, it is already delayed for 2 years by luck of funds.

Given all uncertainty, the simplified model provides only an order of magnitude of the effect, but a more detailed model which take into account actual age distribution is coming.

As the paper is already too long, we tried to outline the main arguments or provide links to the articles where detailed refutation is presented, as in case of Gavrilov, 2010, where the problem of overpopulation is analysed in detail. But it is obvious now that this points should be clarified.

The next round of professional grammar editing is scheduled.

Comment author: Alex_Barry 17 April 2018 10:47:41AM *  2 points [-]

Thanks for the reply. Despite my very negative tone I do think this is an important work, and doing good cost benefit analysis like these is very difficult.

Taking median date of the AI arrival like 2062 is not informative as in half cases it will not be here at 2062. The date of 2100 is taken as the date when it (or other powerful life-extending technology) almost sure will appear as a very conservative estimate.

I don't share the intuition that human level AI will rapidly cause the creation of powerful life-extending technology. This seems to be relying on a rapid takeoff scenario, which while plausible I don't think can be taken as anything like certain. I think if this is the argument it should be spelled out clearly.

With regards to the effectiveness of metformin, my argument is that you should include a discount factor of a half or so to include the probably that it does not pass the human level trial.

Given all uncertainty, the simplified model provides only an order of magnitude of the effect

My issue is that I don't see any arguments that the model is even likely to be accurate to within an order of magnitude.

I'm glad to here a more detailed model is in the works, as I said I think this is important work, but that makes getting it right all the more pivotal.

As the paper is already too long, we tried to outline the main arguments or provide links to the articles where detailed refutation is presented, as in case of Gavrilov, 2010, where the problem of overpopulation is analysed in detail. But it is obvious now that this points should be clarified.

I think if the intention is just to link to other articles with detailed refutations you should just do that and not attempt to summerise (or make it clear this is at most a very rough outline). However for two of the examples I listed no other article is linked.

Comment author: turchin 17 April 2018 10:52:41AM 0 points [-]

May I share with you the next version when all that changes will be done? I expect that the next revision will appear in 2 months.

Comment author: Alex_Barry 17 April 2018 01:06:12PM 1 point [-]

Sure, although I'm not sure how much time I will have to look it over. My email is alexbarry40@gmail.com.