Dr. Emilia Javorsky

It's dynamic, it's complex, and it's highly individualized.

So

compared to other things like treating the flu or treating high blood pressure, right, which are more static biological processes relative to cancer.

Like, this is really the big one in terms of complexity.

I would say there's three main problems with that argument.

The first one is in science, we actually have been accelerating knowledge and intelligence.

We have an oversupply of human scientists relative to what we can actually resource in terms of experimentation.

So the doubling rate of medical knowledge has gone from 50 years in the 1950s down to 73 days by some estimates.

We have an oversupply of scientists relative to number of lab benches and pipettes and people we can resource.

And despite that acceleration and knowledge, we've noticed that therapeutics approved to actually help people have remained markedly flat.

We actually haven't made commensurate progress.

So

the intelligence that we've gained hasn't really been coupled to actually moving the needle on saving people's lives.

Yeah, so there is a danger to waiting and hoping that some future genie is going to solve a problem, which is in some ways the essence of what the ASI promises.

It's sit, wait, hold tight, don't do anything in the here and now.

In the future, there's going to be a cure for all of these problems.

The reality is people are dying today, right?

People need solutions today.

We need to actually be unblocking progress and moving the needle today.

So there's the temporal piece of this where it's like people who have cancer don't have time to wait on the future, right?