Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

.Jacob Kimmel thinks that the functionality to reverse aging already exists in our epigenome. But then why didn't evolution already optimize for longevity? Jacob explains that if you consider evolution as an optimizer, the gradients flow in a really surprising way. Naively, it seems like evolution should want you...

dwarkesh_sp's profile picture

Dwarkesh Patel

134,410 subscribers

257,862 views • 11 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Health & WellnessScience & TechnologyEducation
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

If animals live longer, they can have more kids, and pass on more of their genes. So why hasn't evolution solved aging? Jacob Kimmel explained the three evolutionary reasons why we still grow old: (1) Longevity doesn't actually help that much. Most of our primate ancestors didn't die of natural causes: if you are probably going to be eaten by a tiger, a naturally long lifespan is pointless. (2) Some genes might benefit from aging! If an older animal dies, often the resources they would have consumed are instead consumed by younger kin, who are genetically similar to them but more likely to reproduce. (3) Even if the two other arguments are wrong and there's selection against aging, there might be even stronger selection on other traits. Evolution just might not prioritise longevity.
2:15

If animals live longer, they can have more kids, and pass on more of their genes. So why hasn't evolution solved aging? Jacob Kimmel explained the three evolutionary reasons why we still grow old: (1) Longevity doesn't actually help that much. Most of our primate ancestors didn't die of natural causes: if you are probably going to be eaten by a tiger, a naturally long lifespan is pointless. (2) Some genes might benefit from aging! If an older animal dies, often the resources they would have consumed are instead consumed by younger kin, who are genetically similar to them but more likely to reproduce. (3) Even if the two other arguments are wrong and there's selection against aging, there might be even stronger selection on other traits. Evolution just might not prioritise longevity.

Dwarkesh Patel

124,850 views • 2 months ago

The fight against infectious disease has been one of the most important driving forces in human evolution. So you might expect that evolution has optimised our immune system, and there won't be much low-hanging fruit for improving this with science. But bacteria and viruses evolve so quickly that evolution is constantly racing just to keep up. It doesn't have time to optimise perfectly. Case in point: Our primate ancestors used to have built-in genetic defence against HIV-like viruses. But at some point, the gene was repurposed to protect against a different virus that posed more of a threat. That virus has since disappeared, but our genome is still protecting against it - and failing to protect us against HIV. The good news is that we should expect there to be many opportunities where science can do better than evolution.
2:03

The fight against infectious disease has been one of the most important driving forces in human evolution. So you might expect that evolution has optimised our immune system, and there won't be much low-hanging fruit for improving this with science. But bacteria and viruses evolve so quickly that evolution is constantly racing just to keep up. It doesn't have time to optimise perfectly. Case in point: Our primate ancestors used to have built-in genetic defence against HIV-like viruses. But at some point, the gene was repurposed to protect against a different virus that posed more of a threat. That virus has since disappeared, but our genome is still protecting against it - and failing to protect us against HIV. The good news is that we should expect there to be many opportunities where science can do better than evolution.

Dwarkesh Patel

25,007 views • 1 month ago

Dr. Paul Thomas: "And there's no safe vaccine on the childhood schedule, period. So at this point, I'm also an anti-vaxxer because we don't have a safe vaccine. We don't even have a single one that was properly tested for safety." "However, if you aren't comfortable with how you want your child to die I say in the book in the book Vax Facts that you are more likely to die from the vaccine than you are from the disease for which there is a vaccine, and this is true for every single vaccine on the childhood schedule. It's still a death." "It's still super rare, but you're much more likely to die from the vaccine. So which do you want? You want a greater chance of dying from the vaccine or a lesser chance of dying from the disease? Of course, from many of these diseases, the risk is zero."
0:42

Dr. Paul Thomas: "And there's no safe vaccine on the childhood schedule, period. So at this point, I'm also an anti-vaxxer because we don't have a safe vaccine. We don't even have a single one that was properly tested for safety." "However, if you aren't comfortable with how you want your child to die I say in the book in the book Vax Facts that you are more likely to die from the vaccine than you are from the disease for which there is a vaccine, and this is true for every single vaccine on the childhood schedule. It's still a death." "It's still super rare, but you're much more likely to die from the vaccine. So which do you want? You want a greater chance of dying from the vaccine or a lesser chance of dying from the disease? Of course, from many of these diseases, the risk is zero."

Camus

69,827 views • 1 year ago

.Naval: You have a beautiful definition of knowledge, which most people don’t even try to tackle, about how knowledge perpetuates itself in the environment. You gave some really good examples. One was around genes. Successful, highly adapted genes contain a lot of knowledge and can cause themselves to be replicated because they’re survivors. In the same way, knowledge itself is a survivor, in that if you transmit to me the knowledge of how to build a computer, it’s an incredibly useful thing. I’m going to build more and more computers and that knowledge will be passed on. Your underlying point that you repeated here was if you want to understand the physical universe you have to understand knowledge, because it is the thing that over time takes over and changes more and more the universe—more than almost anything else. You have to understand all the explanations behind it. You can’t just say “particle collisions” because that explains everything, so it explains nothing. It’s not a useful level to operate at. Therefore, the things that create knowledge are uniquely influential in the universe. And as far as we know, there are only two systems that create knowledge. There’s evolution and there are humans. But is there a difference even between these two forms of knowledge creation, between evolution and between humans? David Deutsch: Yes. I have argued that the human way of creating knowledge is the ultimate one, that there aren’t any more powerful ones than that. This is the argument against the supernatural. Assuming that there is a form of knowledge creation that’s more powerful than ours is equivalent to invoking the supernatural, which is therefore a bad explanation—as invoking the supernatural always is. The difference between biological evolution and human creative thought is that biological evolution is inherently limited in its range. That’s because biological evolution has no foresight. It can’t see a problem and conjecture a solution. Whenever biological evolution produces a solution to something, it’s always before natural selection has even begun. This is Charles Darwin’s insight. This is the difference between Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the other theories of evolution that had been around for a century or more before that, including Charles Darwin’s grandfather and Lamarck. The thing they didn’t get is that the creation of knowledge in evolution begins before. That means that biological evolution can’t reach places that are not reachable by successive improvements, each of which allows a viable organism to exist. Creationists say that biological evolution has, in fact, reached things that are not reachable by incremental steps, each of which is a viable organism. They’re factually mistaken. The thing which they have in mind is the idea of a creator who can imagine things that don’t exist and who can create an idea that is not the culmination of a whole load of viable things. A thinking being can create something that’s a culmination of a whole load of non-viable things. Explanatory creativity makes humans unique Out of all the billions and billions of species that have ever existed, none of them has ever made a campfire, even though many of them would’ve been helped by having the genetic capacity to make campfires. The reason it didn’t happen in the biosphere is that there is no such thing as making a partially functional campfire; whereas there is, for example, with making hot water. The bombardier beetles squirt boiling water at their enemies. You can easily see that just squirting cold water at your enemies is not totally unhelpful. Then making it a bit hotter and a bit hotter. Squirting boiling water no doubt required many adaptations to make sure the beetle didn’t boil itself while it was making this boiling water. That happened because there was a sequence of steps in between, all of which were useful. But with campfires, it’s very hard to see how that could happen. Humans have explanatory creativity. Once you have that, you can get to the moon. You can cause asteroids which are heading towards the earth to turn around and go away. Perhaps no other planet in the universe has that power, and it has it only because of the presence of explanatory creativity on it.
4:31

.Naval: You have a beautiful definition of knowledge, which most people don’t even try to tackle, about how knowledge perpetuates itself in the environment. You gave some really good examples. One was around genes. Successful, highly adapted genes contain a lot of knowledge and can cause themselves to be replicated because they’re survivors. In the same way, knowledge itself is a survivor, in that if you transmit to me the knowledge of how to build a computer, it’s an incredibly useful thing. I’m going to build more and more computers and that knowledge will be passed on. Your underlying point that you repeated here was if you want to understand the physical universe you have to understand knowledge, because it is the thing that over time takes over and changes more and more the universe—more than almost anything else. You have to understand all the explanations behind it. You can’t just say “particle collisions” because that explains everything, so it explains nothing. It’s not a useful level to operate at. Therefore, the things that create knowledge are uniquely influential in the universe. And as far as we know, there are only two systems that create knowledge. There’s evolution and there are humans. But is there a difference even between these two forms of knowledge creation, between evolution and between humans? David Deutsch: Yes. I have argued that the human way of creating knowledge is the ultimate one, that there aren’t any more powerful ones than that. This is the argument against the supernatural. Assuming that there is a form of knowledge creation that’s more powerful than ours is equivalent to invoking the supernatural, which is therefore a bad explanation—as invoking the supernatural always is. The difference between biological evolution and human creative thought is that biological evolution is inherently limited in its range. That’s because biological evolution has no foresight. It can’t see a problem and conjecture a solution. Whenever biological evolution produces a solution to something, it’s always before natural selection has even begun. This is Charles Darwin’s insight. This is the difference between Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the other theories of evolution that had been around for a century or more before that, including Charles Darwin’s grandfather and Lamarck. The thing they didn’t get is that the creation of knowledge in evolution begins before. That means that biological evolution can’t reach places that are not reachable by successive improvements, each of which allows a viable organism to exist. Creationists say that biological evolution has, in fact, reached things that are not reachable by incremental steps, each of which is a viable organism. They’re factually mistaken. The thing which they have in mind is the idea of a creator who can imagine things that don’t exist and who can create an idea that is not the culmination of a whole load of viable things. A thinking being can create something that’s a culmination of a whole load of non-viable things. Explanatory creativity makes humans unique Out of all the billions and billions of species that have ever existed, none of them has ever made a campfire, even though many of them would’ve been helped by having the genetic capacity to make campfires. The reason it didn’t happen in the biosphere is that there is no such thing as making a partially functional campfire; whereas there is, for example, with making hot water. The bombardier beetles squirt boiling water at their enemies. You can easily see that just squirting cold water at your enemies is not totally unhelpful. Then making it a bit hotter and a bit hotter. Squirting boiling water no doubt required many adaptations to make sure the beetle didn’t boil itself while it was making this boiling water. That happened because there was a sequence of steps in between, all of which were useful. But with campfires, it’s very hard to see how that could happen. Humans have explanatory creativity. Once you have that, you can get to the moon. You can cause asteroids which are heading towards the earth to turn around and go away. Perhaps no other planet in the universe has that power, and it has it only because of the presence of explanatory creativity on it.

Deutsch Explains

186,329 views • 1 year ago

The more I learn about DNA and the inner workings of our cells, the more I’m convinced that there is a Creator/Force/God. You can call it what you want but to think it’s all just “evolution”, the result of natural selection, seems absolutely absurd to me. I am not saying evolution isn’t real but I am saying that our understanding about the nature of our reality and where we come from is sorely lacking. We like to tell ourselves the “we know the truth”, but the correct answer is that we really don’t know at all. Human origins is the mystery of all mysteries and our arrogance instead of reverence for that mystery is a big reason why evil has gained such a foothold in our world in my opinion. What do you think? Evolution explains it or something else is at play? I don’t claim to know the truth but instinctually feel our explanations are fundamentally flawed. Watch this stunning animation that explains how our DNA is tightly packed up and tell me you are not left with a sense of wonder for the mysterious nature of it all.
6:35

The more I learn about DNA and the inner workings of our cells, the more I’m convinced that there is a Creator/Force/God. You can call it what you want but to think it’s all just “evolution”, the result of natural selection, seems absolutely absurd to me. I am not saying evolution isn’t real but I am saying that our understanding about the nature of our reality and where we come from is sorely lacking. We like to tell ourselves the “we know the truth”, but the correct answer is that we really don’t know at all. Human origins is the mystery of all mysteries and our arrogance instead of reverence for that mystery is a big reason why evil has gained such a foothold in our world in my opinion. What do you think? Evolution explains it or something else is at play? I don’t claim to know the truth but instinctually feel our explanations are fundamentally flawed. Watch this stunning animation that explains how our DNA is tightly packed up and tell me you are not left with a sense of wonder for the mysterious nature of it all.

Champagne Joshi

149,527 views • 2 years ago

Levin's new episode "Stewarding the Flame" is out just now :) The focus: At the dawn of AGI, how can we make sure that the intelligences we're conjuring will add to a FLOURISHING of the process-of-life, rather than a brute optimizer that squashes life? As we get closer to superintelligence few topics are more pressing, and few people are thinking as deeply about the nature of life and intelligence as Levin. Big takeaways: -- Humans and non-human life will have to change if it wants to persist, this happens at every scale of the living process -- There is a much wider state-space of minds that we don't understand, but we should have a better grip on how intelligence works / comes into being before we build an AGI we don't control (because it might not carry the self-creating flame of life, it might be a brute optimizer) -- Levin is overall optimistic that the process of evolution and expanding life (even in forms that we don't understand today as "life" in a bio sense) will most likely continue to bubble up and continue to flourish in forms beyond us (i.e. the process is robust, and we'd REALLY have to mess something up to knock that trajectory off course) Some of the most important parts of this episode: 00:13:17 - Why MUST you transform if you wish to persist? 00:18:50 - Where does the self-preserving, self-expanding impulse "come from" in life? 00:33:30 - What do we need to understand better in order to make AGI "go well" (not just for how it treats humans, but for its ability to expand flourishing intelligence into the future)? 00:48:33 - [A deep-dive into the Flame paradigm (the process-of-life), and the Torch paradigm (pretending homo sapiens sapiens can/should rule all possible futures in a static hominid form).] There's a TON more in here, but this is a start. I sincerely hope you enjoy this episode with Mike!
1:24:30

Levin's new episode "Stewarding the Flame" is out just now :) The focus: At the dawn of AGI, how can we make sure that the intelligences we're conjuring will add to a FLOURISHING of the process-of-life, rather than a brute optimizer that squashes life? As we get closer to superintelligence few topics are more pressing, and few people are thinking as deeply about the nature of life and intelligence as Levin. Big takeaways: -- Humans and non-human life will have to change if it wants to persist, this happens at every scale of the living process -- There is a much wider state-space of minds that we don't understand, but we should have a better grip on how intelligence works / comes into being before we build an AGI we don't control (because it might not carry the self-creating flame of life, it might be a brute optimizer) -- Levin is overall optimistic that the process of evolution and expanding life (even in forms that we don't understand today as "life" in a bio sense) will most likely continue to bubble up and continue to flourish in forms beyond us (i.e. the process is robust, and we'd REALLY have to mess something up to knock that trajectory off course) Some of the most important parts of this episode: 00:13:17 - Why MUST you transform if you wish to persist? 00:18:50 - Where does the self-preserving, self-expanding impulse "come from" in life? 00:33:30 - What do we need to understand better in order to make AGI "go well" (not just for how it treats humans, but for its ability to expand flourishing intelligence into the future)? 00:48:33 - [A deep-dive into the Flame paradigm (the process-of-life), and the Torch paradigm (pretending homo sapiens sapiens can/should rule all possible futures in a static hominid form).] There's a TON more in here, but this is a start. I sincerely hope you enjoy this episode with Mike!

Daniel Faggella

13,823 views • 1 month ago

I asked Nick if an analogy to Github repos would help illustrate the advantages of sexual recombination over asexual cloning or lateral gene transfer. Recombination is like a normal pull request - you have an organized diff at the same site as the previous functionality, and then you merge back if maintainer evaluates the new code to be better (analogy is imperfect, but this is like evolution driving that allele into fixation if it confers advantage). Asexual reproduction is if you just forked the repo millions of times, making random char changes. And even if a couple of these forks end up accidentally producing an improvement, there’s no way for them to merge back into "master". Without recombination, you don't have systematic pooling of the genes. So you can either be on the lineage with beneficial mutation A or beneficial mutation B, not both. This is known as clonal interference. I thought the problem with horizontal gene transfer in bacteria is that it's not like an organized diff. It's like if you just took a random 500 line snippet and shoved it in some totally different repo in totally random place. But actually Nick corrected me on this point of the analogy. The problem with lateral gene transfer is not that you don't have an organized diff - the problem is LGT is that its not scalable to eukaryotes' large genomes (1000x larger than bacteria). You can't systematically exchange tens of thousands of genes (in order to drive up the variance evolution relies upon) through LGT, but you can through recombination. This kind of systematic parallel search across the genome became necessary once the genome size exploded after the endosymbiosis of the ancestral mitochondria (which kept shoving a bunch of its genes into the host cell’s DNA).
3:42

I asked Nick if an analogy to Github repos would help illustrate the advantages of sexual recombination over asexual cloning or lateral gene transfer. Recombination is like a normal pull request - you have an organized diff at the same site as the previous functionality, and then you merge back if maintainer evaluates the new code to be better (analogy is imperfect, but this is like evolution driving that allele into fixation if it confers advantage). Asexual reproduction is if you just forked the repo millions of times, making random char changes. And even if a couple of these forks end up accidentally producing an improvement, there’s no way for them to merge back into "master". Without recombination, you don't have systematic pooling of the genes. So you can either be on the lineage with beneficial mutation A or beneficial mutation B, not both. This is known as clonal interference. I thought the problem with horizontal gene transfer in bacteria is that it's not like an organized diff. It's like if you just took a random 500 line snippet and shoved it in some totally different repo in totally random place. But actually Nick corrected me on this point of the analogy. The problem with lateral gene transfer is not that you don't have an organized diff - the problem is LGT is that its not scalable to eukaryotes' large genomes (1000x larger than bacteria). You can't systematically exchange tens of thousands of genes (in order to drive up the variance evolution relies upon) through LGT, but you can through recombination. This kind of systematic parallel search across the genome became necessary once the genome size exploded after the endosymbiosis of the ancestral mitochondria (which kept shoving a bunch of its genes into the host cell’s DNA).

Dwarkesh Patel

35,854 views • 9 months ago

The theory of evolution is bullshit. Period. Can’t find one evolutionist who can explain why apes still exist. What, are all the other apes absolutely retarded? They just can’t figure this evolution thing out? These are the same people who will point towards snakes having legs at one point as proof of evolution - except there isn’t a single snake running around the planet with feet. My point? They contradict themselves. If all snakes have evolved to a point where they no longer have feet, THEN WHY HAVEN’T ALL APES EVOLVED INTO HUMAN BEINGS. Simple: Because we didn’t evolve from apes. Evolution theory also does nothing to explain RH- blood, of which 15% of the planet possesses. That means that roughly 1.2 BILLION people possess blood that is in no way genetically tied to a monkey or an ape. But evolution, right? 🤣
1:29

The theory of evolution is bullshit. Period. Can’t find one evolutionist who can explain why apes still exist. What, are all the other apes absolutely retarded? They just can’t figure this evolution thing out? These are the same people who will point towards snakes having legs at one point as proof of evolution - except there isn’t a single snake running around the planet with feet. My point? They contradict themselves. If all snakes have evolved to a point where they no longer have feet, THEN WHY HAVEN’T ALL APES EVOLVED INTO HUMAN BEINGS. Simple: Because we didn’t evolve from apes. Evolution theory also does nothing to explain RH- blood, of which 15% of the planet possesses. That means that roughly 1.2 BILLION people possess blood that is in no way genetically tied to a monkey or an ape. But evolution, right? 🤣

Paul Fleuret

254,922 views • 7 months ago

American Autoimmune Doctor explaining how the medications that are prescribed for autoimmune diseases are not meant to make you better, they’re meant to keep you sick forever This is pure evil “It's interesting, the more that I practice functional medicine, the more I realize that the whole system is really set up against you. And the reason why I say that is that, for example, the most common cause of autoimmune disease is actually an infection. But when you go to the rheumatologist, all you're going to get is Xeljanz, Sulfasalazines, you're going to get Humira, Enbrel, you're going to get those things which actually suppress your immune system. So if the number one root cause, according to authors, right, of autoimmunity is an infectious issue, what's going on here? If you're suppressing your immune system, you're always going to have autoimmunity if your trigger is an infection. So it is the definition of a vicious circle, but it's almost like it was set up so that you will always be on those medications, which by the way, highest profit margin in pharmaceutical science and pharmaceutical sales are these immune modulating medications. So remember, there's no vested interest for you to get better.”
0:52

American Autoimmune Doctor explaining how the medications that are prescribed for autoimmune diseases are not meant to make you better, they’re meant to keep you sick forever This is pure evil “It's interesting, the more that I practice functional medicine, the more I realize that the whole system is really set up against you. And the reason why I say that is that, for example, the most common cause of autoimmune disease is actually an infection. But when you go to the rheumatologist, all you're going to get is Xeljanz, Sulfasalazines, you're going to get Humira, Enbrel, you're going to get those things which actually suppress your immune system. So if the number one root cause, according to authors, right, of autoimmunity is an infectious issue, what's going on here? If you're suppressing your immune system, you're always going to have autoimmunity if your trigger is an infection. So it is the definition of a vicious circle, but it's almost like it was set up so that you will always be on those medications, which by the way, highest profit margin in pharmaceutical science and pharmaceutical sales are these immune modulating medications. So remember, there's no vested interest for you to get better.”

Wall Street Apes

448,544 views • 1 year ago

The reason you age has nothing to do with bad genetics. Evolution literally never NEEDED you to live past 40. And now one lab is overriding millions of years of biological programming. David Sinclair explained the logic: in prehistoric times, most humans died from famine, disease, or war by age 30 to 40. If you were born with a mutation that let you live to 90, it was useless. You'd be killed by a predator or a neighboring tribe long before it mattered. So evolution optimized for one thing: breed fast, die young. But here's the proof this can change: Species with no predators evolved dramatically longer lifespans. Bowhead whales live for hundreds of years. Bristlecone pine trees have been alive since the pyramids were built. The reason? Nothing eats them. So evolution gave them stable epigenetic systems. Their cells don't lose identity. They barely get cancer. Humans never got that biological upgrade because we never survived long enough for evolution to select for it. Sinclair's lab proved this by engineering mice with accelerated DNA breaks. No cancer. No mutations. Just broken chromosomes that got repaired imperfectly. Within 10 months, those mice aged 50% faster than their identical twins. Gray hair. Frailty. Every disease of aging. All triggered by the same mechanism his theory predicted. Then they reversed it. Evolution built us to reproduce and die. Science is rewriting that code in real time. — David Sinclair
1:54

The reason you age has nothing to do with bad genetics. Evolution literally never NEEDED you to live past 40. And now one lab is overriding millions of years of biological programming. David Sinclair explained the logic: in prehistoric times, most humans died from famine, disease, or war by age 30 to 40. If you were born with a mutation that let you live to 90, it was useless. You'd be killed by a predator or a neighboring tribe long before it mattered. So evolution optimized for one thing: breed fast, die young. But here's the proof this can change: Species with no predators evolved dramatically longer lifespans. Bowhead whales live for hundreds of years. Bristlecone pine trees have been alive since the pyramids were built. The reason? Nothing eats them. So evolution gave them stable epigenetic systems. Their cells don't lose identity. They barely get cancer. Humans never got that biological upgrade because we never survived long enough for evolution to select for it. Sinclair's lab proved this by engineering mice with accelerated DNA breaks. No cancer. No mutations. Just broken chromosomes that got repaired imperfectly. Within 10 months, those mice aged 50% faster than their identical twins. Gray hair. Frailty. Every disease of aging. All triggered by the same mechanism his theory predicted. Then they reversed it. Evolution built us to reproduce and die. Science is rewriting that code in real time. — David Sinclair

Goku

81,851 views • 4 months ago

‘Wars end with the exhaustion of one of the sides. We are still a long way from that’ – Merz cynically calls for fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian. ‘I remind you again and again, if you look at history – how do wars end? Usually they end because of the economic or military exhaustion of one of the sides – or both. And we are still, in all likelihood, a long way from that point in the current war. And so I assume that we may have to prepare for a longer conflict. But this in no way changes our determination to support Ukraine’
0:39

‘Wars end with the exhaustion of one of the sides. We are still a long way from that’ – Merz cynically calls for fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian. ‘I remind you again and again, if you look at history – how do wars end? Usually they end because of the economic or military exhaustion of one of the sides – or both. And we are still, in all likelihood, a long way from that point in the current war. And so I assume that we may have to prepare for a longer conflict. But this in no way changes our determination to support Ukraine’

Zlatti71

96,963 views • 1 year ago

David Reich doesn't think population size has been a big constraint on human evolution. Why? (1) The human genome already contains more than enough diversity for natural selection - we generally don't need to worry about having a large enough population for new mutations. (2) Sometimes if selection is weak enough, it can be swamped by random genetic drift in small populations. But then it would be so weak that, even in a large population, it wouldn't make a difference on the timescales of human history. So population doesn't really matter either way.
2:37

David Reich doesn't think population size has been a big constraint on human evolution. Why? (1) The human genome already contains more than enough diversity for natural selection - we generally don't need to worry about having a large enough population for new mutations. (2) Sometimes if selection is weak enough, it can be swamped by random genetic drift in small populations. But then it would be so weak that, even in a large population, it wouldn't make a difference on the timescales of human history. So population doesn't really matter either way.

Dwarkesh Patel

26,455 views • 2 months ago

We asked rahul about the global reach of ChatGPT and the emphasis on personality in AI models. "When you want to get to the one to like the remaining 90% of the users, do you want a model that thinks for longer? You want more personality?" "They definitely leaned in on personality, which I think is interesting." "It's kind of different than a (social media) feed in some ways because you have this person you talk to. It's like a relationship and then it just switches up on how it talks to you."
0:50

We asked rahul about the global reach of ChatGPT and the emphasis on personality in AI models. "When you want to get to the one to like the remaining 90% of the users, do you want a model that thinks for longer? You want more personality?" "They definitely leaned in on personality, which I think is interesting." "It's kind of different than a (social media) feed in some ways because you have this person you talk to. It's like a relationship and then it just switches up on how it talks to you."

TBPN

89,226 views • 1 year ago

Scott on why conviction in an idea is dangerous as an investor but required as a founder: "From the investor seat, I don't think you want to be in love with an idea. That's a risky thing because you'll find a way to express that by investing and make some compromises on the team because you know this idea is just so good, its time has come. But if the team isn't there, 90% of the time it doesn't work. Then there's a whole thing can you swap out the team? But the whole Founders Fund thesis was always no, you need the founder to run the company. But on the company side, you have to be in love with the idea. It's not that rational to start a company. There's a lot easier, more comfortable ways to make money if that's the goal. So it's got to be about what the company is doing specifically. If you want to actually start a company, it better be something that you're really passionate about, or you think that the problem is really important."
1:15

Scott on why conviction in an idea is dangerous as an investor but required as a founder: "From the investor seat, I don't think you want to be in love with an idea. That's a risky thing because you'll find a way to express that by investing and make some compromises on the team because you know this idea is just so good, its time has come. But if the team isn't there, 90% of the time it doesn't work. Then there's a whole thing can you swap out the team? But the whole Founders Fund thesis was always no, you need the founder to run the company. But on the company side, you have to be in love with the idea. It's not that rational to start a company. There's a lot easier, more comfortable ways to make money if that's the goal. So it's got to be about what the company is doing specifically. If you want to actually start a company, it better be something that you're really passionate about, or you think that the problem is really important."

Patrick OShaughnessy

33,016 views • 3 months ago

🕰️ Make time your friend. Be the ancestor of your future happiness Poet David Whyte on 'How I Write' with David Perell: "All of us can remember a moment, a threshold moment in our existence where you picked up the phone or you went out the door or you put yourself out to have a conversation. You asked for a gift or funding for your work as you did, you know, and you were granted it. And if you hadn't have gone out the door, if you hadn't have picked up the phone, if you hadn't have asked, your life would be immeasurably impoverished today. So you could actually, well, you could actually go back to the person you were in that moment and thank yourself in a way as making a pilgrimage back to that moment." We imagine time is our enemy: "Time makes fools of us all" "I ran out of time" "There's not enough time in the day" Relating to time in this other way befriends it. Rather than cling to the moment, you jump into the flow of time and realize that now is the opportunity to be the ancestor of your future happiness. Now is the only time. What will you do today for your future happiness?
1:14

🕰️ Make time your friend. Be the ancestor of your future happiness Poet David Whyte on 'How I Write' with David Perell: "All of us can remember a moment, a threshold moment in our existence where you picked up the phone or you went out the door or you put yourself out to have a conversation. You asked for a gift or funding for your work as you did, you know, and you were granted it. And if you hadn't have gone out the door, if you hadn't have picked up the phone, if you hadn't have asked, your life would be immeasurably impoverished today. So you could actually, well, you could actually go back to the person you were in that moment and thank yourself in a way as making a pilgrimage back to that moment." We imagine time is our enemy: "Time makes fools of us all" "I ran out of time" "There's not enough time in the day" Relating to time in this other way befriends it. Rather than cling to the moment, you jump into the flow of time and realize that now is the opportunity to be the ancestor of your future happiness. Now is the only time. What will you do today for your future happiness?

Dan McAteer

13,608 views • 1 year ago

The subject of 'owning a slave' is dense. It is something we hear a lot when we are in the FemDom Realm. Is it just fantasy? Can it actually be a lifestyle? How do we navigate this type of dynamic? How do we even get to that level of D/s? In this short clip [Exerpt from SLAVE TRAINING Part 2] I want to already bring to your attention one thing that will define if your desire for a slave (or desire as a slave) is touching more on a fantasy or... how can you actually navigate this in a realistic way. No one person 'can do it all' or should be expected to. If you want your slave to be 'the best' , assign them a specific role in which they can excel... and then build upon that. Once they 'master' your housekeeping (which takes quite a bit of real training), they can move to other levels. And an important note I want to leave here... make them EARN access to certain things in your life that sometimes you just want to delegate because you don't want to manage or don't know how to manage. Entrusting them with serious tasks that can affect your life, your business, your reputation, are on top of the ladder. Are they even qualified for the thing you want them to take off your shoulders? Start small and allow them to grow in their submission, to develop their skills and to learn how to best satisfy you without setting them up for failure by expecting too much, too quick. In the end, if you want this to truly work, you have to approach it from a place that transcends the roles. As this is consensual power exchange. And you both want to be fulfilled in that relationship.
1:16

The subject of 'owning a slave' is dense. It is something we hear a lot when we are in the FemDom Realm. Is it just fantasy? Can it actually be a lifestyle? How do we navigate this type of dynamic? How do we even get to that level of D/s? In this short clip [Exerpt from SLAVE TRAINING Part 2] I want to already bring to your attention one thing that will define if your desire for a slave (or desire as a slave) is touching more on a fantasy or... how can you actually navigate this in a realistic way. No one person 'can do it all' or should be expected to. If you want your slave to be 'the best' , assign them a specific role in which they can excel... and then build upon that. Once they 'master' your housekeeping (which takes quite a bit of real training), they can move to other levels. And an important note I want to leave here... make them EARN access to certain things in your life that sometimes you just want to delegate because you don't want to manage or don't know how to manage. Entrusting them with serious tasks that can affect your life, your business, your reputation, are on top of the ladder. Are they even qualified for the thing you want them to take off your shoulders? Start small and allow them to grow in their submission, to develop their skills and to learn how to best satisfy you without setting them up for failure by expecting too much, too quick. In the end, if you want this to truly work, you have to approach it from a place that transcends the roles. As this is consensual power exchange. And you both want to be fulfilled in that relationship.

Ms. Malissia

12,836 views • 5 months ago

Stephen C. Meyer says Darwin’s theory of evolution has, for many, become more like a religion than a scientific theory. “Darwinian evolution functions as a kind of secular religion.” “And you can see why, because it's answering one of the most fundamental questions that any worldview or religion has to answer.” “Which is what is the thing or the entity or the process from which everything else came?” “And the neo-Darwinian explanation of the origin of new forms of life is part of the answer to that really fundamental question, which is not only a scientific question but a philosophical worldview question.” “Because it functions like a secular religion, sometimes there's resistance to a more dispassionate scientific evaluation of its merits.” Stephen C. Meyer
0:54

Stephen C. Meyer says Darwin’s theory of evolution has, for many, become more like a religion than a scientific theory. “Darwinian evolution functions as a kind of secular religion.” “And you can see why, because it's answering one of the most fundamental questions that any worldview or religion has to answer.” “Which is what is the thing or the entity or the process from which everything else came?” “And the neo-Darwinian explanation of the origin of new forms of life is part of the answer to that really fundamental question, which is not only a scientific question but a philosophical worldview question.” “Because it functions like a secular religion, sometimes there's resistance to a more dispassionate scientific evaluation of its merits.” Stephen C. Meyer

Jan Jekielek

199,433 views • 3 months ago

“I was trying purposefully not to be clever with this. I wanted to get a very simple chorus but one which still had some substance to the harmony and melody. Something that was easy to digest but still had a bit of character to it. So Much is about mortality, getting old, all the bright, cheerful subjects, but I think when you get to my sort of age, you either run away from mortality or you jump into it and try and live life to the full and that always seems to make a lot more sense to me. The countries that seem most alive are those that have death as part of their culture.” - pg
1:07

“I was trying purposefully not to be clever with this. I wanted to get a very simple chorus but one which still had some substance to the harmony and melody. Something that was easy to digest but still had a bit of character to it. So Much is about mortality, getting old, all the bright, cheerful subjects, but I think when you get to my sort of age, you either run away from mortality or you jump into it and try and live life to the full and that always seems to make a lot more sense to me. The countries that seem most alive are those that have death as part of their culture.” - pg

Peter Gabriel

54,214 views • 2 years ago

When Andrew Huberman asked about the root cause of aging, Dr. David Sinclair gave a surprisingly simple answer: "Aging is a loss of information in the same way you try to copy a cassette tape, or even if you send information across the internet, some of it will get lost." There are two types of information our bodies carry: "There is the genetic information, which is digital — A, T, C, G, the chemical letters of DNA. But there's this other part of the information in the body that's just as important, it's essential, in fact, and that's the systems that control which genes are switched on and off." And when it comes to which one matters more for how long and how well you live, the answer isn't even close: — David Sinclair
2:35

When Andrew Huberman asked about the root cause of aging, Dr. David Sinclair gave a surprisingly simple answer: "Aging is a loss of information in the same way you try to copy a cassette tape, or even if you send information across the internet, some of it will get lost." There are two types of information our bodies carry: "There is the genetic information, which is digital — A, T, C, G, the chemical letters of DNA. But there's this other part of the information in the body that's just as important, it's essential, in fact, and that's the systems that control which genes are switched on and off." And when it comes to which one matters more for how long and how well you live, the answer isn't even close: — David Sinclair

John Cumbers

305,874 views • 4 months ago