Seems ChatGPT is starting a cult.
3 Likes
I think Bryan Johnson may have already gotten that same message 
5 Likes
Alex Kantrowitz podcast interview with Microsoft’s “AI CEO” Mustafa Suleyman on their recent breakthrough medical diagnosis system:
Their new system can diagnose better than doctors, where the test involves not just look at medical charts, but also interviewing the patient so that it can drill-down, if need be. He says that in some of their tests human doctors were only 20% accurate in reaching a diagnosis while their AI was over 85% accurate.
He mentions how they test their system on fresh mystery cases to diagnose that appear in The New England Journal of Medicine – like an “ultimate Crossword for doctors”, as Suleyman says – that couldn’t have been in the training data. So, good performance on those shows that the system is able to generalize.
As with many AI results like this, one needs to take it with a grain of salt and ask, where do humans do better (if at all)? But overall it looks to me to be a really promising advance!
6 Likes
A_User
#124
I’d say Bryan is correct-directionally correct. I like his ideas and what he’s popularizing.
1 Like
Robot surgery on humans could be trialled within decade after success on pig organs
AI-trained robot carries out procedures on dead pig organs to remove gall bladders without any human help
The surgical robots were slightly slower than human doctors but they were less jerky and plotted shorter trajectories between tasks. The robots were also able to repeatedly correct mistakes as they went along, asked for different tools and adapted to anatomical variation, according to a peer-reviewed paper published in the journal Science Robotics.
The authors from Johns Hopkins, Stanford and Columbia universities called it “a milestone toward clinical deployment of autonomous surgical systems”.
…
“We were able to perform a surgical procedure with a really high level of autonomy,” said Axel Krieger, assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Johns Hopkins. “In prior work, we were able to do some surgical tasks like suturing. What we’ve done here is really a full procedure. We have done this on eight gallbladders, where the robot was able to perform precisely the clipping and cutting step of gallbladder removal without any human intervention.
“So I think it’s a really big landmark study that such a difficult soft tissue surgery is possible to do autonomously.”
I would guess if it starts to look like there is serious money to be made in this in the not-too-distant future, AI companies will swoop down with large amounts of money and try to do it all themselves. (Something to watch to see what this looks like going forward is OpenAI’s effort in robotics – e.g. there are rumors they have made a breakthrough in this, and in an interview Sam Altman offhandedly said, “I think we have some new technology that could just do self driving for standard cars way better than any current approach has worked.”)
5 Likes
Shady
#126
As a robotic surgeon, we are a long ways from AI doing robotic surgery on humans. Tech and AI progression is exponential but I can’t imagine AI robotic surgery on humans within 10 years.
3 Likes
The authors and researchers who put together that article title are an optimistic bunch. I think regulations will greatly slow down tech like that. Anything that can potentially kill someone with the slightest error will have to pass a lot of tests until it gets approved in human use without direct supervision.
However… it would not surprise me if the technology can actually do what they claim within just a few years. Researchers are starting to crack general robotics in the real world in unseen environments:
Previous robot demos like this (for example from Boston Dynamics, Honda’s ASIMO, or Moley Robotics) were highly scripted, and did not have the ability to complete general tasks in unstructured environments like in the above video. In fact, even just a year or two ago robots were nowhere near as impressive as in that video for general tasks. It’s a bit frightening to imagine where it will be in even just one more year.
1 Like
Shady
#128
I agree. regulation will be huge. Also liability. Who’s responsible when the robot makes a mistake and the patient is harmed?
In regards to the gallbladder surgery, it was a dead pig so the robot didn’t have to deal with bleeding, movement from respiration, smoke from cautery. Bleeding will be huge because often in surgery you accept mild bleeding knowing it won’t cause problems and you are still able to dissect a somewhat bloody field. This technique can even lead to superior outcomes when you are operating on vital structures that shouldn’t have cautery used adjacent to them. Knowing what bleeding is problematic and should be stopped vs what is better left alone is knowledge gained only through experience and moment to moment decision making. I’m probably underestimating AI, but I just don’t see it making that decision correctly and as accurately as an experienced surgeon. At least not anytime in the next 10 years. Also, a gallbladder for an experienced surgeon is often a <30 minute case. Plenty of our surgeries can be hours long with infinitely more surgical moves. Again, a huge task for a non-human to complete.
2 Likes
I’m using a new AI enabled web browser which I’m finding interesting… you can easily have any video analyzed while you are on that video, and sumarized (without having to open a new window and go to ChatGPT or other LLM…
You can try the Beta version here:
4 Likes
“Hormones play a key role in nearly every aspect of human biology, from stress responses, sleep and metabolism, to cognitive performance, reproductive health and even the aging process itself. However, testing for many hormones in a typical “one-off” context fails to capture natural fluctuations and trends, limiting their usefulness in proactive health management. Eli is aiming to change that, giving users the opportunity to continuously track their hormonal patterns over time and intervene early, adapting behaviors based on real biological data.”
4 Likes
Sciborg: ‘Gerontology won’t solve aging fast enough’
2 Likes
A nice video for some weekend viewing from: StarTalk! Astrophysicist & Hayden Planetarium director Neil deGrasse Tyson and guests discussing death and life extension. Rapamycin and calorie restriction are discussed at 39:33
“The world’s expert” Cambridge University
The science of aging, and the search for immortality with Nobel Prize-winning structural biologist Venki Ramakrishnan, author of the new book Why We Die: The New Science of Aging and the Quest for Immortality.
2 Likes
A summary of this video above by the DIA AI browser: https://www.diabrowser.com/
Here are the key points from the StarTalk episode “Do We Have To Die? With Venki Ramakrishnan”:
• The episode explores why living things die, the science of aging, and whether immortality is possible, featuring Nobel Prize-winning biologist Venki Ramakrishnan.
• Death is complex: There are many types (societies, cities, individuals), but the focus is on the death of an individual organism. Paradoxically, while an organism dies, many of its cells may still be alive, which is why organ donation is possible. 
• Defining death is challenging. Historically, it was when the heart stopped, but now brain death is often used. Definitions can vary by location and legal standards. 
• Aging is described as a gradual accumulation of damage at the molecular, cellular, and tissue levels. DNA, proteins, and mitochondria all deteriorate over time, leading to aging and disease. 
• Senescent cells (aged cells that no longer divide) can cause inflammation and contribute to aging. Originally, this process may have evolved to prevent cancer or remove damaged cells, but too many senescent cells later in life are harmful. 
• Cellular reprogramming and regenerative medicine are emerging fields. Scientists have learned to turn specialized cells back into stem cells, which could help repair or replace damaged tissues. However, this is still early-stage research. 
• Lifespans vary widely in the animal kingdom. Some animals, like Greenland sharks and certain jellyfish, live much longer than humans. Evolution tends to favor reproduction over longevity, so most species die from external causes before aging becomes an issue. 
• Attempts to reverse aging include young blood transfusions, caloric restriction, and drugs like rapamycin. While some methods show promise in animal studies, none have been proven to dramatically extend human lifespan yet. 
• There are no physical or chemical laws that require humans to die at a certain age. Theoretically, extending lifespan is possible, but practical and safe methods are not yet available. 
• Social consequences of longer lives could include less generational turnover, more concentration of wealth and power among the old, and potentially less creativity and innovation in society. 
• Philosophically, the knowledge of death gives life meaning and urgency. Most people, however, would choose to extend their healthy lifespan if given the chance. 
Some of his comments on rapamycin:
Rapamycin and Aging
- Researchers discovered that rapamycin can shut down a major cellular pathway that senses nutrients. This pathway is related to caloric restriction, which is known to extend lifespan in various organisms.
- In animal studies, giving rapamycin to mice led to them living a bit longer and appearing healthier.
Limitations and Concerns
- Rapamycin is an immunosuppressive drug, which means it can make users more prone to infections, similar to the effects of steroids. It also has other side effects.
- The key question in research is whether it’s possible to adjust the dosage of rapamycin to gain anti-aging benefits without the negative effects of immunosuppression and other side effects.
- As of now, the “jury is still out” on whether rapamycin can be safely and effectively used to slow aging in humans. More research is needed to determine if the benefits can be separated from the risks.
Context in Anti-Aging Research
- Rapamycin is described as the “darling of the anti-aging” field, meaning it’s one of the most promising and talked-about drugs in current longevity research.
- The discussion places rapamycin alongside other anti-aging strategies like caloric restriction and intermittent fasting, which also affect similar biochemical pathways.
Summary
- Rapamycin has shown promise in extending lifespan in animal models by mimicking the effects of caloric restriction.
- Its use in humans is limited by its immunosuppressive effects and other side effects.
- Research is ongoing to see if the anti-aging benefits can be harnessed safely for people.
3 Likes
“more prone to infections, similar to the effects of steroids”
Anecdotally, N=1, I don’t see it.
I have been taking relatively high doses of rapamycin weekly for almost five years.
We are told that as we age, our immune system is not as effective.
I lead a relatively everyday life. I travel, shop in large grocery stores, and go to the gym several times weekly. So, I would say I get a normal exposure to pathogens, and yet in the last five years, I have had no colds, flu, or anything else, except for a bad reaction to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Rapamycin dramatically improved my chronic actinic keratosis, and I am essentially pain-free. The only side effect that I have experienced is slower wound healing, and that is my subjective experience; no real way to prove it.
I am not saying this proves anything, but I do think the “more prone to infections, similar to the effects of steroids” is not based on any human studies other than the kidney transplant patients who take it daily. Any comparison to steroids is ridiculous. Linus Pauling and other Nobel Prize winners have demonstrated that they can occasionally make ridiculous statements regardless of their high IQs and education.
2 Likes
