I’m talking about a way to steal the IP through our own legal system. Basically, they patent something even if they don’t have a working prototype, force a US company to reveal how they did it through a lawsuit, and then steal it.

More likely by increasing birth rates with eugenic filters and euthanizing the old, sick and poor since they are generally net negative inputs on budgets.

It’s literally about stealing the IP rights. Tech A is possible, they don’t know how to do it, but they publish a paper saying they made tech A. Now when MIT in collaboration with a Fortune 500 company develop tech A, they challenge it in court and they US is forced to reveal the tech.

They might even own the IP when it’s all said and done.

Winnie the Pooh level honey pot.

We can say with high confidence that it is not weeks away. Years, A maybe. Decades to centuries is probably more likely.

My take — if the platform isn’t acting as an editor with moderation, then they shouldn’t be held liable.

I’m hardly a billionaire, but there are already many crude treatments for life extension. Everything from diet, to pharmaceuticals like Metformin, to supplements like NMN. A few hundred bucks a month is all it takes.

One consequence of radical life extension will likely be a radical reorientation of work. So much of what we do economically is based on our limited productive years of life. We basically race from 20 to 65 to save enough to deal with our unproductive 70’s through death. If age related death is off the table, people will likely work much less. Or maybe they work the same amount, but take periodic retirements. I think of raising children — imagine your productive life span isn’t limited. You work for 40 years, but instead of permanent retirement, you take off 15 years while you raise your children.

Lots of possibilities for a much more rewarding life.

Far more bold to assume it won’t be. Every piece of technological advancement in human history has made it to the masses. Doesn’t matter if it’s mechanical, electronic or medicinal. This too will make it to the masses. There’s too much money to be made for it not to, and the technology will, like every piece of technology, become cheaper over time.

Cancer itself is a symptom of aging. Treating aging would be getting at the root cause of so many diseases.

They’re already working on primate studies according to David Sinclair.

That’s not how technology or medicine works. Economies of scale are a thing.

Assuming it would be at an equivalent of 20-40 years old, I would LOVE to live indefinitely. There is just so much to do. Imagine having virtually infinite time to learn languages to read books in their original tongue, to travel the world, build your own house by hand, take up art mediums or musical instruments and become world class, and on and on.

Gosh, I can think of thousands of years worth of activities I would love to indulge in! And by the time I’m done doing those things, imagine how many more things there would be?

Unfortunately, I fear my parents (70’s) are too old. I’m probably borderline to reach escape velocity. I just hope my kids will be able to get me at a high energy/reasonably healthy state through their parenthood period.

More likely that beauty becomes MORE valuable. Think about it — as technology improves, resource scarcity will drop towards zero. So now money and social status means less.

The only thing left will be beauty.

Looks like the exhaust is hidden from underneath, which would make sense for hiding the heat signature.

Kid of a delta wing blended body design with no vertical stabilizer — speed, stealth and endurance while sacrificing maneuverability.

Everything is being built with an eye towards the pacific theater and China now, so this all makes sense. We need long range, fast aircraft to deal with the distances involved in combating China.

Sacrifice maneuverability for that and low observability.

Not a whole lot new here from my untrained eye… basically fits what everyone suspected.

“If they don’t change.”

Yes, it’s called math.

In any case, plenty of civilizations have been destroyed by collapsing populations. The precedent is pretty clear. And the math of replacing humans with robots is pretty clear as well: input and maintenance costs are far less economical for a lot of labor than relatively cheap humans.

So as the human population declines it becomes more and more expensive to upkeep the complex systems that allow for modern society. We can see this vulnerability today with the strain on the logistical system and supply chains and energy costs. A hypothetical future of robot workers will be exponentially more complex and exponentially more vulnerable to disruption.

No, it is absolutely horrible for people. First, “people” will cease to exist if these demographic trends don’t change. We will literally just go extinct.

Secondly, everything from basic civilizational support to the mental health of society is based on family formation. Wide swaths of jobless, childless people is a recipe for catastrophe.

The bigger issue is population DECLINE. We’ll be paying people to HAVE kids, not the other way around. If automation and AI displace blue and white collar workers in droves, they won’t be able to afford children. And this problem is already baked into the cake. Every developed country has this problem. Immigration is a bandaid, because they too stop having kids after a generation or two ascending into the middle class. The ones that can’t do that… well, they’re basically the extras from Idiocracy.

Just look at the population structures and fertility rates of North America, Europe, China, Japan, Australia, etc. global population is going to peak in 50 years, give or take, and then it’s a terminal decline unless people are incentivized to reproduce.

The other issue is that you can’t force people to learn jobs that they don’t have the cognitive ability to perform. You can’t force people to learn advanced physics if they have a 100 IQ. They just don’t have the intellectual horsepower. Likewise, you can’t force someone to learn basic skills if they’re on the left end of the bell curve.