AI 2027

These timelines always assume that things progress as quickly as they can be conceived of, likely because these timelines come from "Ideas Guys" whose involvement typically ends at that point.

Orbital mechanics begs to disagree about a Mars colony in 10 years. Drug discovery has many steps that take time, even just the trials will take 5 years, let alone actually finding the drugs.

Didn't the covid significantly reduce trial times? I thought that was such a success that they continued on the same foot.

No it didn’t. At least not for new small molecule drugs. It did reduce times a bit for the first vaccines because there were many volunteers available, and it did allow some antibody drug candidates to be used before full testing was complete. The only approved small molecule drug for covid is paxlovid, with both components of its formulation tested on humans for the first time many years before covid. All the rest of the small molecule drugs are still in early parts of the pipeline or have been abandoned.

The other reply has better info on covid specifically, but also consider that this refers to "immortality drugs". How long do we have to test those to conclude that they do in fact provide "immortality"?

Now sure, they don't actually mean immortality, and we don't need to test forever to conclude they extend life, but we probably do have to test for years to get good data on whether a generic life extension drug is effective, because you're testing against illness, old age, etc, things that take literally decades to kill.

That's not to mention that any drug like that will be met with intense skepticism and likely need to overcome far more scrutiny than normal (rather than the potentially less scrutiny that covid drugs might have managed).

trial times were very brief for Covid vaccines because 1) there was no shortage of volunteers, capital, and political alignment at every level 2) the virus was everywhere and so it was really, really easy to verify if it was working. Compare this with a vaccination for a very rare but deadly disease: it's really hard to know if it's working because you can't just expose your test subjects to the deadly disease!

It reminds me of this rather classic post: http://johnsalvatier.org/blog/2017/reality-has-a-surprising-...

Science is not ideas: new conceptual schemes must be invented, confounding variables must be controlled, dead-ends explored. This process takes years.

Engineering is not science: kinks must be worked out, confounding variables incorporated. This process also takes years.

Technology is not engineering: the purely technical implementation must spread, become widespread and beat social inertia and its competition, network effects must be established. Investors and consumers must be convinced in the long term. It must survive social and political repercussions. This process takes yet more years.

Curing aging might be immediately obvious--like old folks have all their diminished capacity restored, and they are more similar to their physical peak.

Old people may have a lot of reason to volunteer to use these.

I think we will discover that our body can reset itself via some trigger mechanism. It built us once, the code isn't gone. It can do it again.

I don't think curing aging is an easy thing anyway. The whole of evolution is basically set up against it. Because it would break evolution itself.

There isn't a single species that has somehow gained infinite lifespans though mutation. I think it's a lot harder to accomplish. I guess a lot of it has to do with degrading DNA (and again, evolution never had to figure out a fix for that because it's a feature not a bug).