Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog – Page 3,099

Join us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/MichaelLustgartenPhD

Discount Links:
Epigenetic Testing: https://trudiagnostic.com/?irclickid=U-s3Ii2r7xyIU-LSYLyQdQ6…M0&irgwc=1
Use Code: CONQUERAGING

NAD+ Quantification: https://www.jinfiniti.com/intracellular-nad-test/
Use Code: ConquerAging At Checkout.

Oral Microbiome: https://www.bristlehealth.com/?ref=michaellustgarten.
Enter Code: ConquerAging.

At-Home Metabolomics: https://www.iollo.com?ref=michael-lustgarten.
Use Code: CONQUERAGING At Checkout.

At-Home Blood Testing (SiPhox Health): https://getquantify.io/mlustgarten.

Continue reading “Did DunedinPACE Improve For Test #5 in 2023? Also, Is NAD Significantly Correlated With DunedinPACE?” | >

When a group of researchers asked an AI to design a robot that could walk, it created a “small, squishy and misshapen” thing that walks by spasming when filled with air.

The researchers — affiliated with Northwestern University, MIT, and the University of Vermont — published their findings in an article for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on October 3.

“We told the AI that we wanted a robot that could walk across land. Then we simply pressed a button and presto!” Sam Kriegman, an assistant professor at Northwestern University and the lead researcher behind the study, wrote in a separate blog post.

Read more | >

We are arguably at “the knee” of the curve. More breakthroughs have happened in the first 9 months of 2023 than all previous years from the turn of the century (2001 — 2022).

Will AGI kill us all? Will we join with it? Is it even close? Is it just “cool stuff”? Will we have bootstrapping self-improving AI?

The podcast crew today:
On the panel (left to right): Stefan Van Der Wel, Oliver Engelmann, Brendan Clarke.
Host camera: Roy Sherfan, Simon Carter.
Off camera: Peter Xing.

Read more | >

Our solar system officially houses eight planets, but some scientists say there could be a ninth. And that’s not just Pluto aficionados – evidence suggests a huge undiscovered world lurks on the dark fringes out there. Now, a new study has found the outer solar system oddities could be explained by modified theories of gravity, an alternative idea to dark matter.

In the 19th century, astronomers measuring the orbit of Uranus noticed some inconsistencies between observations and predictions, and concluded that it was being influenced by the gravity of a large unseen body. Sure enough, the planet Neptune was soon discovered as a result.

In 2016 astronomers made a similar prediction: based on the bizarre orbital patterns of six icy objects in the Kuiper belt, an unknown planet with the mass of about 10 Earths could be tugging on them from the shadows. Further evidence from other objects and even the Sun’s tilt seemed to strengthen the case.

Read more | >

A research team led by Prof. Yossi Paltiel at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem with groups from HUJI, Weizmann, and IST Austria recently conducted a study unveiling the significant influence of nuclear spin on biological activities. This discovery challenges long-held assumptions and opens up exciting possibilities for advancements in biotechnology and quantum biology.

Scientists have long believed that nuclear spin had no impact on biological processes. However, recent research has shown that certain isotopes behave differently due to their nuclear spin. The team focused on stable oxygen isotopes (16O, 17O, 18O) and found that nuclear spin significantly affects oxygen dynamics in chiral environments, particularly in its transport.

Read more | >

“It’s never really the goal of anybody to write papers — it’s to do science,” says Michael Eisen, a computational biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who is also editor-in-chief of the journal eLife. He predicts that generative AI tools could even fundamentally transform the nature of the scientific paper.

But the spectre of inaccuracies and falsehoods threatens this vision. LLMs are merely engines for generating stylistically plausible output that fits the patterns of their inputs, rather than for producing accurate information. Publishers worry that a rise in their use might lead to greater numbers of poor-quality or error-strewn manuscripts — and possibly a flood of AI-assisted fakes.

“Anything disruptive like this can be quite worrying,” says Laura Feetham, who oversees peer review for IOP Publishing in Bristol, UK, which publishes physical-sciences journals.

Read more | >