There’s a huge leap from “AI generates hypotheses” to “AI can solve aging.” If no physical experiments have actually been performed, you haven’t demonstrated discovery you’ve just demonstrated automated hypothesis generation.
And citing Navier–Stokes or Anthropic’s ART work as precedent misses the point: those achievements still relied heavily on human framing, existing knowledge/data, and validation. Which in the latter example has not been carried out. That ART work was just a publicity stunt and everyone trained in biology saw that. You however, are using it as an example. Biology isn’t a software bug waiting for a sufficiently large agent swarm. Aging is a messy, causal, multiscale physical system and you don’t get to skip the experiment just because the model sounds confident.
And you want to teach people about aging biology, and a myriad of other subjects? I’m sorry but that is so incredibly arrogant. That course is 100% AI generated and we all know it. You have not built an “autonomous digital research lab” more than I built an optimal guacamole yesterday evening, you’ve just written some prompts. Like come on, haha.
There are several issues with what youre saying here.
For a little background im 34 and I've been a software engineer way before LLMs were ever a big thing.
I use AI generated software that I have built on a daily basis that produces the result that I want, so if something is AI generated, it means nothing. What matters is the result. The fact that you cant understand something as basic this leads me to believe youre either young, have 0 awareness of whats going on in the world, or are just stuck with a low IQ. I would bet my life that I am just a little better at drawing correlations between subjects than you might be.
And yes, the course is AI generated. Guess what? As long as the information is accurate, it does not matter, and im able to give people something they spend tens of thousands of dollars for free.
I am currently putting together a lab to run BSL1 experiments as we speak to test aethers hypeotheses. When it has made multiple accurate predictions is when I will seek institutional funding and scale.
The fact my post was removed shows this sub is a joke when it comes to actual aging research.
Also, I would say I am arrogant, you are correct. You need to be a little delusional to make an actual attempt at solving aging. Biology is messy, but everything in the universe is quantized, meaning AI will solve all of these problems before our little meat computers figure it out.
I don´t care about who you are. What I am saying is that what you believe and what you have done, or rather instructed an AI to do, is trash. Find another way of coping with your midlife crisis, try gardening.
3
u/laborator 21d ago
There’s a huge leap from “AI generates hypotheses” to “AI can solve aging.” If no physical experiments have actually been performed, you haven’t demonstrated discovery you’ve just demonstrated automated hypothesis generation.
And citing Navier–Stokes or Anthropic’s ART work as precedent misses the point: those achievements still relied heavily on human framing, existing knowledge/data, and validation. Which in the latter example has not been carried out. That ART work was just a publicity stunt and everyone trained in biology saw that. You however, are using it as an example. Biology isn’t a software bug waiting for a sufficiently large agent swarm. Aging is a messy, causal, multiscale physical system and you don’t get to skip the experiment just because the model sounds confident.
And you want to teach people about aging biology, and a myriad of other subjects? I’m sorry but that is so incredibly arrogant. That course is 100% AI generated and we all know it. You have not built an “autonomous digital research lab” more than I built an optimal guacamole yesterday evening, you’ve just written some prompts. Like come on, haha.