It would be interesting to know how much biology this dude truly explored before plunking down his $100M on some other dude promising him to revolutionize the brain.
Would you guys prefer that Johnson donate his $100M to the NIH or a university that's already working on related research, or is there benefit to him taking a different route and funding Berger and this org directly?
I think i'm largely agnostic about that in principle.
In practice, collaborations are hard and setting up new ones is even harder, so striking out into the wild and being able to do cool stuff fast generally costs more than 100M.
From what I understand though, that's exactly why Johnson invested his own money and turned down outside investment: this is just the first step on a very long road, and it doesn't sound like he anticipates a viable return in an amount of time that a venture fund could justify participating in.
>" The futuristic device, which Johnson says might actually not need to be implanted beneath the skull at all, is designed to facilitate communication between brain cells by hacking the “neural code” that enables our brain to store and recall key information. "
Estimated timescale: centuries. Not for want of trying, but we have no credible idea what "the" neural code is, even in subcortical areas that are relatively simple to study like the optic and auditory nerves. Once you're anywhere beyond the inferior colliculus, all bets are officially off. (and if you have any good ideas, drop me a line!)
Assuming this refers to the Apollo Lunar Module, landing on the moon was an engineering challenge based on known science, and it still cost an obscene amount of money for questionable benefit.
This is a relatively small sum being spent on a project for which very little of the basic science is in place. It may be his own money he's spending, but everyone else is also free to give their honest opinion that he's throwing it down the drain.
You realize that project cost billions of dollars with insanely huge teams of smart people working with established principles of physics, chemistry, and so on rather than mostly unknowns in neuroscience?
No practical comparison between this and Apollo despite me wanting an Apollo-style effort put into certain problems we face. Including understanding the brain although maybe communications infrastructure, cheap computing, and MOOC's first. That will give us more brains for Apollo-style endeavors.
Wow. Much higher than I remembered. It's like the brute force approach to getting something done except the force is sheer dollars and labor focus on one goal.
Did you read the article? Where Johnson anticipates $7-10B in funding to get anything out the door? He's investing $100M of his own money to get things started. The point is that the reflexive negativity here is simply astonishing, again, given that we're all communicating via technology that, less than one century ago, would be considered pure magic.
Oh no. The guy behind my favorite company on bootstrapping page got rich selling it to a top schemer in payments industry and fell for others' bullshit that throwing money at neuroscience will make miracles happen. Wow. What an ending...
...illustrates the problem well. Here's a nice quote:
"Although researchers worldwide were publishing tens of thousands of neuroscience studies every year, neither our understanding of basic brain functions nor our ability to treat brain disorders seemed to be progressing much. "
It's mostly been a failure. The successes have been very, very limited from what I've read. I'm a non-expert that follows generalist scientific publications that report on breakthroughs and interesting products. So, maybe I've missed all the amazing things neuroscience is doing for people's health outside actual surgeries. I just figure spectacular results coming from all the grants and private investment would've made it into things I read. Rarely anything does past "Hmm. That study had some interesting results that might go somewhere some time with a lot more work." Followed by others that seem to contradict it or at least make me wonder.
I remember recently there was an article showing renewed interests in glial cells since they might be more critical to brain function than previously thought. Imagine that. All this research and money thrown at it since the beginning of the field operated on the assumption that they weren't significant. There were others I saw about neural communication in previous years that overturned prior beliefs. One can wonder what new fundamentals we'll learn in this next decade that will challenge our prior beliefs.
Introducing technology that improves how something functions usually needs accurate knowledge about how that something fundamentally works. Investments like Johnson's bet that results will be achieved without that knowledge or even with incorrect knowledge. Kind of like old gold rushes where people bet there'd be gold all over the place in certain areas without even prospecting them first. That's the feeling I get looking at neural ventures.
Note: We had them in the past, too. Implants to control or expand the mind, cause hallucinations, effortlessly give you lucid dreams, and so on. Enough interesting stuff happened that some tactical accomplishments might come from just throwing money at random stuff. Yet, all the interesting stuff of past and present still hasn't given a non-drug guarantee on things as basic as insomnia, depression, or ADD. All failure so far in big picture.
The best way to do things with limited cash is to invest research into understanding how certain things are happening then devise solutions to specific problems or mechanisms identified. He might succeed where he does that. As other article indicated, that pre-requisite is often not there enough for stuff to happen. The article indicated another project with that problem was failing to tune of hundreds of millions of dollars while whole field was mostly failing to achieve useful stuff.
No, the alternative is for you to invest $100M of your own money into a company to do things in this other alternative instead of the reflexive negativity that's going on here. I know it's easier to complain about how someone else spends their own money though.
There has been some success with things like cochlear and retinal implants. The approach Johnson and Berger appear to be taking doesn't seem so far removed from that.
Oh yes, there's been successes. Thanks for the reminder on those. Johnson and Berger might have a chance if they keep their focus similarly narrow and practical. Personally I hope they succeed as I have brain damage myself. I'm just playing the odds on very ambitious projects that require correctly guessing how the brain works and changing that for the better.
A guy bootstrapped a company and got rich doing it: the best possible inspiration to future bootstrappers, but you find that a bad thing? What's your problem with someone spending his own money to chase something you think is impossible? Seriously, the amount of hate on HN for people that are actually trying to do hard things is astonishing.
"A guy bootstrapped a company and got rich doing it: the best possible inspiration to future bootstrappers"
Oh no. That's one possible inspiration. Another would be Braintree IPOing or continuing as a company providing an alternative to Paypal's BS I constantly read about while guy continues to make tons of money or get rich. Then he invests in hard problems we're likely to solve where we have the necessary foundation to begin to achieve the stated goals.
Instead, he got rich selling off his good company and now has money to blow on stuff like this. Good for him. Still inspirational with Braintree's early work still something I'm going to cite. Just still worth critiquing for where it went or is going wrong so next bootstrapper considers better alternatives.
Also, realize the irony that you don't like us criticizing what he did with Braintree or where the money is going while Braintree itself owed its success to correct criticism of how successful payment companies were doing things & where their investments were going. He pointed out the problems, showed a better way via his offering, and now we're talking about him instead of them. ;)
The man doesn't owe you a goddamn thing, and doesn't have some moral obligation to save you from shitty payment processing. You act like you rose him out of the ashes to save humanity and that's simply not the case.
"The man doesn't owe you a goddamn thing, and doesn't have some moral obligation to save you from shitty payment processing."
That's compatible with my comment. It proposes alternative to the path he took that other bootstrappers with utilitarian bent might find interesting. It doesn't require him personally to do anything. I even said his success was "good for him" in terms of efforts in and result achieved.
"You act like you rose him out of the ashes to save humanity"
You made that up. I explicitly said he didn't. His goal was to get rich. It would take more selfless individuals to do lasting things for humanity. It will take majority of humanity working together to save humanity.
So giving away $100M of his own money isn't in the slightest selfless? He's a selfish individual? Helping terrible diseases isn't doing something lasting for humanity?
People have to be totally selfish or selfless says a false dichotomy. People seem to like those. I see people's actions to be along a spectrum between where the motivations vary depending on what they want to do. Some people seem to lean almost entirely toward one or the other but I'm not prescriptive about that.
We don't have to guess about his motivations, though. It's in the article:
"For Johnson, the quest is innately personal. His step-father has early signs of Alzheimer’s."
He and his step-father are suffering through the effects of Alzheimer's. He definitely has personal gain from a treatment that would work. There's a clear selfless angle on helping the step-father. He probably, after personally experiencing it, also would like to prevent others from going through the same thing. That's my guess. Respectable motivations for sure.
Im presenting alternatives for others to aspire to. Ive given him props for his success and still use his company as a positive example in several ways. I would never call him a failure.
Having watched the Berger video it's interesting what they do - basically have a grid of electrodes at the input to the hippocampus and another at the output and use computer analysis to see what input gives what output and also sometimes allow the computer to stimulate the output.
I guess something like that would allow you to try different computer models to simulate different bit of brain and so decipher its functions bit by bit.
Making sure one of the most used parts of software in the world gets proper funding for additional security audits, better performance optimization for more platforms, leveling the playing field for small hardware vendors who can't afford their own Kernel Developers, allowing for more disruptive technology on top of the Linux kernel?
Nah. Not really Valley Style, lets just fund another AI Moonshot. Because there isn't enough money in AI already.
I mean sure, the ROI investing into the Linux Kernel is 0. But so much money is flowing into AI Moonshots currently that look like their value will be 0 that one gets disheartened quickly when important infrastructure for everyone is needing cash badly, but there is no businessmodel...
This is my exact argument for why "free market" doesn't always work. Sometimes you need to subsidize an unprofitable venture to truly move forward. Then innovation and profit models come after the initial hurdle is over. Most investors don't want to subsidize for long-term profit though.
Blaming "free market" for Linux kernel underfunding is very twisted logic.
I would argue that any GPL-ed software is a hallmark of communism as it is public property and noone is allowed to make any money on it (at least not directly). Therefore, the strongest motivation for hard work (profit) is absent.
Communism, as commonly defined, is a system of government. If there was any government compulsion for Linux to exist, or even if there was government-funded work in making Linux better than commercial alternatives, you'd have an argument. But this is a product that people use in the presence of excellent commercial alternatives.
Also, it's totally untrue that it's public property (it's private property, just a lot of people's and companies' private property), and that you're not allowed to make money on it "directly". You can make as much money as the market is willing to pay you. If you are selling things that are already publicly available without any added value, that's probably $0, but that's not the result of any permission not being given to you, that's the result of you failing at business. If bottled municipal water is a thriving industry, there's no reason that providing GPL'd Linux patches in a useful form can't be a thriving industry (and in fact it is).
Going by that logic all money should be poured into Moonshots. Every available Ship should have sailed to find India. Every Researcher should be researching immortality...
Ambition isn't the only thing that counts. As much as I'd love to seeing a full cent of every taxdollar going into NASA, handing over the whole dollar would make very people feel very miserable very fast.
I hope this makes the resentment towards the ratio of money flowing into AI Moonshots compared to a little more down to earth things that are needed right now a little more understandable.
What's with all the negativity on the comments here? Are all moonshots doomed after Theranos? Or may be there's already solid proof that this is the next Theranos?
I'm a very skeptical and pessimistic man, but can we extend at least some benefit of a doubt here, please.
I'd read somewhere that the workings of our brains are just too complex for us to understand, or rather, we are just too good to understand it thoroughly to "unlock the powers".
You see, if the brain was simple enough for us to understand its workings, we would not be even capable of understanding the basics of the nervous system functioning (we would have been just too dumb with such simple brains!), and therein lies this irony - We will never be able to fully understand our own brains, because that very impossibility has given us the ability to understand almost everything else in this universe.
rms_returns is saying that our own intelligence and ability to comprehend things is a function of the complexity of our brains.
So, low complexity results in under-performing intelligent ability. On the other hand, high complexity results in a higher performing brain but more difficult to understand.
I wouldn't necessarily agree with this argument because I suspect intelligent ability is only partially related to neural architecture. Additionally, the ability to perceive things lies in having some kind of framework in which a question can be formed.
If they can find a way to tweak genes to force the brain to have more glial cells, the type of cells that support neuron functions, or enhance the glial performance, they can eventually make people sustain high mental performance for longer periods of time.
One of the findings after analyzing Einstein's brain was that he had a higher ratio of glias to neurons.
Here's someone who's investing his own hard-earned money into a "device aimed at reducing cognitive deficiencies for sufferers of conditions like Alzheimer’s and dementia." And all anyone can do is complain that it's infeasible or that he's unqualified. I don't know about you, but I want more people working on these problems, not less.
Seems very reminiscent of when Musk was starting SpaceX and everyone assumed he didn't know anything about the domain and would automatically fail.
So when you other HN'ers make a formulaic "I'm shocked at all the negativity here" post, is it typically with the intention of riding the contrarian karma train to the top of every thread, or do you actually hold these positions?
I write such a comment occasionally too, so I'll be happy to answer despite how downvoted you already are: a bit of both. I mean, I can't be the only one who considers HN's karma machine a fun game. An interesting and occasionally insightful game, but still, a game.
That's a good point. Space travel was something whose principles were well-understood with plenty of worked examples. Quite unlike the Johnson investment we're talking about but let's continue. It was mainly hard to engineer on a budget due to all the variables and components involved. I was really excited but cautious about that company. I really wanted them to succeed.
So, lets test your theory by having a look at one of their regularly, successful launches that 14 years investment brought them:
That's true. The product has had very, few uses with only a few failures. Hard to say how reliable it is until we see more launches. Which is kind of the point given this is a well-understood field vs OP investment in one that isn't. Reasons why I think SpaceX is a bad point of comparison to judge this investment.
True. I blame it on a trend of the 2010s: friendly people who would otherwise write moderate and/or optimistic comments a decade ago, have increasingly lost motivation to partake. This is my theory at least, I can't back it up scientifically or any of that. The causes and/or reasons are that many of those people may have become parents (myself included), or have grown tired of the negativity, or frustrated by the Orwellian developments. We all know the most obvious example on HN: leave a well intended comment and get at least one cynical or even suffocating response that doesn't even get downvoted properly. It gets tiring really fast. Fast forward a couple of years, and most of what's left is enforced so-called constructivism, hyperextreme political correctness, cynisism and depression.
The glory days are over, I think, and I strongly doubt that future generations will keep using the Internet for social interaction.
I'm pulling further and further back from online communication, back in the 90's I loved talking to people around the world about technology and programming but these days I often come away with negative feelings, everyone seems so cynical and jaded or siloed off, it seems almost impossible to talk about anything new without someone carpet bombing it with the absolute most negative interpretation of whatever was said.
I have reddit and HN /etc/hosts'd out on my laptops and desktops and mostly just check them occasionally from phone, if you surround yourself with that eventually it starts to soak in.
It also could have something to do with the socioeconomic landscape where a vast majority of individuals simply don't have the means or ability to contribute or even participate.
Sure, can't rule it out. But I'd say you're pointing out a different (though in and of itself legitimate) problem than the problem of hostility in the sphere which many of us from the 70s and 80s grew up and old(ish) in.
To be honest with you, if I just look at how those people in my very well developed country (with the Internet being ubiquitous, and being poor generally means receiving minimal benefits as opposed to having no money or place to live) behave who still do partake in the public discourse, I'd say that the problem is more with all of their bitterness than that their bitterness is caused by those who never even had a chance in the first place.
As for me, I'm no saint either because I too can get bitter, annoyed, cynical and depressed from time to time. The difference is just that don't tell people off or post my unhappiness; I have the proclivity to just shut up and leave. "There's no use to arguing". Or I do my absolute best to be constructive, like now.
And to add to that: these days and even years I also barely share my own happiness and/or optimism online, because I don't want my vulnerabilities and/or soft spots to become targets. In fact, I'm not even sharing most of my humanity / personality / identity online with strangers at all anymore, unless it's to reflect or in an attempt to at least offer something to counter all of the now common harshness. Like in comments such as this one. And if I'm really really honest then I also need to admit that this side of me is really closer to a character trait than that it's something implying actual personal involvement.
But I digressed, sorry, so let me back up a bit to the two kinds of groups we've established. Maybe the latter group (the one you pointed out) could indeed bring something nice to the table. Assuming they could, it's not realistic to assume they would, for clearly it's not exactly an hospitable, inviting environment these days, and I'd say this just doesn't make it appealing at all.
Simply put: it is what it is mainly due to those who can join in and they either freeze, fight, or flight. Who in their right mind who's not here already would want to join in on that mess?
My only question: is it better to start a separate fund (OS fund) or company (Kernel) for biomedical research rather than joining a pre-existing one?
The article said that Pfizer annually spends $7-9bn on R&D. Maybe resources are spread too thin; people want moonshots in the biomedical industry as there were in tech, but barriers for entry in this field seem too high.
The benefits are long-term, something I think private investment won't be interested in but perhaps private innovators will be.
This reads like he really liked the Nexus book trilogy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nexus_Trilogy
Even some of the language is the same. The theme of the book is 'running a kernel over neurons'. It is even an open source kernel.
> a company with the sole purpose of building hardware and software to augment human intelligence
Human intelligence, while fallible and easy to turn off, is arguably our best feature. It's also very versatile.
Bryan Johnson can spend his money any way he likes of course, but one has to wonder why there aren't more initiatives to augment our senses instead of working on intelligence (our own or the intelligence of machines).
I would love to gain a permanent ability to see in the dark, hear ultrasounds, know where North is at all times, etc.
And "all" one has to do with a new sensor is plug it in: the brain is very good at making sense of any new signal, and using it, without prompting or training.
The plugin-in part is non-trivial, of course (although there are shortcuts, such as using the tongue as a crude V0); but one can imagine that once we're able to build a general API to the human brain, many gadgets could be developed for it.
"And "all" one has to do with a new sensor is plug it in: the brain is very good at making sense of any new signal, and using it, without prompting or training."
That doesn't sound right. E.g. see stories of blind people who have gotten sight at a late age - I think the tendency is for them not to be able to really utilize sight the way sighted-from-birth people do.
71 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadUmmm... that's quite a big leap!
It would be interesting to know how much biology this dude truly explored before plunking down his $100M on some other dude promising him to revolutionize the brain.
>It would be interesting to know how much biology this dude truly explored before plunking down his $100M ...
Not enough.
In practice, collaborations are hard and setting up new ones is even harder, so striking out into the wild and being able to do cool stuff fast generally costs more than 100M.
Estimated timescale: centuries. Not for want of trying, but we have no credible idea what "the" neural code is, even in subcortical areas that are relatively simple to study like the optic and auditory nerves. Once you're anywhere beyond the inferior colliculus, all bets are officially off. (and if you have any good ideas, drop me a line!)
Our best tools fail to explain anything particularly interesting about much, much simpler analogous systems: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055624.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-human-bra...
"We built a lunar lander from scratch in seven years."
Hard things get done by people who try to do them. Seriously, it's his own money.
This is a relatively small sum being spent on a project for which very little of the basic science is in place. It may be his own money he's spending, but everyone else is also free to give their honest opinion that he's throwing it down the drain.
No practical comparison between this and Apollo despite me wanting an Apollo-style effort put into certain problems we face. Including understanding the brain although maybe communications infrastructure, cheap computing, and MOOC's first. That will give us more brains for Apollo-style endeavors.
I looked it up - around $20.4B in 1960s dollars, so $160B today. $20B per mooon landing. Not counting Mercury or Gemini.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1
The main brain tech guy is Theodore Berger who has tested implants in rats, monkeys and humans with some success http://singularityhub.com/2015/11/15/first-human-tests-of-me...
Berger on video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHubR09oKKE
-VP OF ENGINEERING
-DIRECTOR TO THE CEO
-DATA SYSTEMS ENGINEER / DATA SCIENTIST
-MODELER FOR NEUROPROSTHESIS ALGORITHMS
-MACHINE LEARNING FOR NEUROPROSTHESIS
-SCALABLE NEURAL INTERFACES LEAD (ARCHITECT)
-NEUROSCIENTIST
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-human-bra...
...illustrates the problem well. Here's a nice quote:
"Although researchers worldwide were publishing tens of thousands of neuroscience studies every year, neither our understanding of basic brain functions nor our ability to treat brain disorders seemed to be progressing much. "
It's mostly been a failure. The successes have been very, very limited from what I've read. I'm a non-expert that follows generalist scientific publications that report on breakthroughs and interesting products. So, maybe I've missed all the amazing things neuroscience is doing for people's health outside actual surgeries. I just figure spectacular results coming from all the grants and private investment would've made it into things I read. Rarely anything does past "Hmm. That study had some interesting results that might go somewhere some time with a lot more work." Followed by others that seem to contradict it or at least make me wonder.
I remember recently there was an article showing renewed interests in glial cells since they might be more critical to brain function than previously thought. Imagine that. All this research and money thrown at it since the beginning of the field operated on the assumption that they weren't significant. There were others I saw about neural communication in previous years that overturned prior beliefs. One can wonder what new fundamentals we'll learn in this next decade that will challenge our prior beliefs.
Introducing technology that improves how something functions usually needs accurate knowledge about how that something fundamentally works. Investments like Johnson's bet that results will be achieved without that knowledge or even with incorrect knowledge. Kind of like old gold rushes where people bet there'd be gold all over the place in certain areas without even prospecting them first. That's the feeling I get looking at neural ventures.
Note: We had them in the past, too. Implants to control or expand the mind, cause hallucinations, effortlessly give you lucid dreams, and so on. Enough interesting stuff happened that some tactical accomplishments might come from just throwing money at random stuff. Yet, all the interesting stuff of past and present still hasn't given a non-drug guarantee on things as basic as insomnia, depression, or ADD. All failure so far in big picture.
Are you real or a markov chain
Oh no. That's one possible inspiration. Another would be Braintree IPOing or continuing as a company providing an alternative to Paypal's BS I constantly read about while guy continues to make tons of money or get rich. Then he invests in hard problems we're likely to solve where we have the necessary foundation to begin to achieve the stated goals.
Instead, he got rich selling off his good company and now has money to blow on stuff like this. Good for him. Still inspirational with Braintree's early work still something I'm going to cite. Just still worth critiquing for where it went or is going wrong so next bootstrapper considers better alternatives.
Also, realize the irony that you don't like us criticizing what he did with Braintree or where the money is going while Braintree itself owed its success to correct criticism of how successful payment companies were doing things & where their investments were going. He pointed out the problems, showed a better way via his offering, and now we're talking about him instead of them. ;)
That's compatible with my comment. It proposes alternative to the path he took that other bootstrappers with utilitarian bent might find interesting. It doesn't require him personally to do anything. I even said his success was "good for him" in terms of efforts in and result achieved.
"You act like you rose him out of the ashes to save humanity"
You made that up. I explicitly said he didn't. His goal was to get rich. It would take more selfless individuals to do lasting things for humanity. It will take majority of humanity working together to save humanity.
We don't have to guess about his motivations, though. It's in the article:
"For Johnson, the quest is innately personal. His step-father has early signs of Alzheimer’s."
He and his step-father are suffering through the effects of Alzheimer's. He definitely has personal gain from a treatment that would work. There's a clear selfless angle on helping the step-father. He probably, after personally experiencing it, also would like to prevent others from going through the same thing. That's my guess. Respectable motivations for sure.
I guess something like that would allow you to try different computer models to simulate different bit of brain and so decipher its functions bit by bit.
Nah. Not really Valley Style, lets just fund another AI Moonshot. Because there isn't enough money in AI already.
I mean sure, the ROI investing into the Linux Kernel is 0. But so much money is flowing into AI Moonshots currently that look like their value will be 0 that one gets disheartened quickly when important infrastructure for everyone is needing cash badly, but there is no businessmodel...
I would argue that any GPL-ed software is a hallmark of communism as it is public property and noone is allowed to make any money on it (at least not directly). Therefore, the strongest motivation for hard work (profit) is absent.
Also, it's totally untrue that it's public property (it's private property, just a lot of people's and companies' private property), and that you're not allowed to make money on it "directly". You can make as much money as the market is willing to pay you. If you are selling things that are already publicly available without any added value, that's probably $0, but that's not the result of any permission not being given to you, that's the result of you failing at business. If bottled municipal water is a thriving industry, there's no reason that providing GPL'd Linux patches in a useful form can't be a thriving industry (and in fact it is).
An AI moonshot if it works would change everything. It would change way more than the Linux kernel ever even dreamed of doing.
Ambition isn't the only thing that counts. As much as I'd love to seeing a full cent of every taxdollar going into NASA, handing over the whole dollar would make very people feel very miserable very fast.
I hope this makes the resentment towards the ratio of money flowing into AI Moonshots compared to a little more down to earth things that are needed right now a little more understandable.
I'm a very skeptical and pessimistic man, but can we extend at least some benefit of a doubt here, please.
You see, if the brain was simple enough for us to understand its workings, we would not be even capable of understanding the basics of the nervous system functioning (we would have been just too dumb with such simple brains!), and therein lies this irony - We will never be able to fully understand our own brains, because that very impossibility has given us the ability to understand almost everything else in this universe.
So, low complexity results in under-performing intelligent ability. On the other hand, high complexity results in a higher performing brain but more difficult to understand.
I wouldn't necessarily agree with this argument because I suspect intelligent ability is only partially related to neural architecture. Additionally, the ability to perceive things lies in having some kind of framework in which a question can be formed.
One of the findings after analyzing Einstein's brain was that he had a higher ratio of glias to neurons.
I have watched Bryan talk before and have been following him. He is determined enough to at least make a significant contribution in this area.
Here's someone who's investing his own hard-earned money into a "device aimed at reducing cognitive deficiencies for sufferers of conditions like Alzheimer’s and dementia." And all anyone can do is complain that it's infeasible or that he's unqualified. I don't know about you, but I want more people working on these problems, not less.
Seems very reminiscent of when Musk was starting SpaceX and everyone assumed he didn't know anything about the domain and would automatically fail.
So, lets test your theory by having a look at one of their regularly, successful launches that 14 years investment brought them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arIc1NlHvV0
The glory days are over, I think, and I strongly doubt that future generations will keep using the Internet for social interaction.
I have reddit and HN /etc/hosts'd out on my laptops and desktops and mostly just check them occasionally from phone, if you surround yourself with that eventually it starts to soak in.
To be honest with you, if I just look at how those people in my very well developed country (with the Internet being ubiquitous, and being poor generally means receiving minimal benefits as opposed to having no money or place to live) behave who still do partake in the public discourse, I'd say that the problem is more with all of their bitterness than that their bitterness is caused by those who never even had a chance in the first place.
As for me, I'm no saint either because I too can get bitter, annoyed, cynical and depressed from time to time. The difference is just that don't tell people off or post my unhappiness; I have the proclivity to just shut up and leave. "There's no use to arguing". Or I do my absolute best to be constructive, like now.
And to add to that: these days and even years I also barely share my own happiness and/or optimism online, because I don't want my vulnerabilities and/or soft spots to become targets. In fact, I'm not even sharing most of my humanity / personality / identity online with strangers at all anymore, unless it's to reflect or in an attempt to at least offer something to counter all of the now common harshness. Like in comments such as this one. And if I'm really really honest then I also need to admit that this side of me is really closer to a character trait than that it's something implying actual personal involvement.
But I digressed, sorry, so let me back up a bit to the two kinds of groups we've established. Maybe the latter group (the one you pointed out) could indeed bring something nice to the table. Assuming they could, it's not realistic to assume they would, for clearly it's not exactly an hospitable, inviting environment these days, and I'd say this just doesn't make it appealing at all.
Simply put: it is what it is mainly due to those who can join in and they either freeze, fight, or flight. Who in their right mind who's not here already would want to join in on that mess?
The article said that Pfizer annually spends $7-9bn on R&D. Maybe resources are spread too thin; people want moonshots in the biomedical industry as there were in tech, but barriers for entry in this field seem too high.
The benefits are long-term, something I think private investment won't be interested in but perhaps private innovators will be.
Human intelligence, while fallible and easy to turn off, is arguably our best feature. It's also very versatile.
Bryan Johnson can spend his money any way he likes of course, but one has to wonder why there aren't more initiatives to augment our senses instead of working on intelligence (our own or the intelligence of machines).
I would love to gain a permanent ability to see in the dark, hear ultrasounds, know where North is at all times, etc.
And "all" one has to do with a new sensor is plug it in: the brain is very good at making sense of any new signal, and using it, without prompting or training.
The plugin-in part is non-trivial, of course (although there are shortcuts, such as using the tongue as a crude V0); but one can imagine that once we're able to build a general API to the human brain, many gadgets could be developed for it.
That doesn't sound right. E.g. see stories of blind people who have gotten sight at a late age - I think the tendency is for them not to be able to really utilize sight the way sighted-from-birth people do.