Who is behind this number

The claim is everywhere: AI and quantum computing are growing exponentially, therefore eternal life is roughly ten years away. I wanted to know whether that was actually true.

What I could not find was anyone who had written down the arithmetic. Plenty of manifestos, plenty of confident dates, almost no published assumptions. So I built the arithmetic myself, and put the whole thing where anyone can check it.

I have no lab, no clinical training, and no peer-reviewed work in aging biology. That belongs at the top of this page rather than buried at the bottom, because this site publishes a number about when medicine might outrun aging, and you should know exactly who is making that claim and on what basis.

This site is not peer-reviewed and has not been audited by anyone. The readiness scores are informed judgements, not measurements.

My work is curation and modelling, not discovery. The method is to track what gets published across eight research fields, score how ready each one is, and run those scores through a model that anyone can open and inspect. Modern AI tooling is what makes that tractable for one person.

Allocating capital over long horizons is, at bottom, the habit of writing down what you assume, how confident you are, and what would prove you wrong. Most forecasts about aging never do that. This one is published as code — every parameter, every judgement call, and a fixed random seed, so you can reproduce the 66-year figure exactly, or fork it and get a different one.

Not a promise, and not a debunking either. A live instrument.

When a real breakthrough lands, you should be able to come here and see how much it actually moved the date. And when something makes headlines but moves nothing, you should be able to see that too. That second case is the more common one, and almost nobody reports it.

The four assumptions that genuinely drive the answer are listed on the model page. If you think one of them is wrong, say so — that is the most useful thing you can do for this project.

The best channel is a GitHub issue, because it stays public. Corrections here are logged, not quietly edited. For anything that does not belong in the open, write to cstaketoki@outlook.com.