ChristianKl comments on Open thread, Sep. 19 - Sep. 25, 2016 - Less Wrong

2 Post author: DataPacRat 19 September 2016 06:34PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (92)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: ChristianKl 23 September 2016 10:32:10AM 3 points [-]

Did Zuckerberg make the right choice by a Berkeley, Stanford, and University of California collaboration decide how to spend their money? I guess BioHub will be similar than the NIH is how it allocates funding.

Zuckerberg could also have funded Aubrey de Grey. They could have funded research on how to make medical research better the way the Laura and John Arnold Foundation does.

TechCrunch:

The technologies Zuckerberg listed were “AI software to help with imaging the brain…to make progress on neurological diseases, machine learning to analyze large databases of cancer genomes,

Last year we made progress in understanding that the brain contains lympahtic tissue because a surgeon fund it. All the standard imaging didn't bring us forward. Using machine learning to analyze large databases of cancer genomes is also a well funded research area.

Funding AI technology to create <1000$ bodyscans based on technology like Walabot would likely bring us much further in understanding our bodies than the kind of research that's already well funded like brain imagining and genome analysis.

Comment author: turchin 23 September 2016 11:50:13PM 2 points [-]

He didn't not. Also Buck institute of aging is underfunded.

Comment author: ChristianKl 24 September 2016 09:50:08PM 0 points [-]

Having read a bit more sources besides TechCrunch I'm a bit more optimistic. Chen/Zuckerberg won't judge applications and tool building is a valid goal.

The Cell Atlas also looks like a valid project.