STEM-Talk

Today we have the second of a two-part AMA. In part one, episode 198, we covered a multitude of listener questions about AI, which lately seems to dominate the news cycle. Other than one AI question that managed to sneak in, today’s AMA features a wide range of questions on a number of topics other than artificial intelligence. Today, Ken and Dawn respond to listener questions that range from: — Whether there’s a critical difference between whey protein powders and ready-to-drink protein shakes? — Is there a sweat spot for how much time a person should spend on resistance training during a week? — Ken’s thoughts on a paper that looked at whether higher meat consumption could be associated with a lower risk of dementia among people carrying the APOE ε4 gene variant. — What kind of Pandora’s box will we open if parents start doing genetic tests on their infants to see if their children have, say, the APOE ε4 gene variant? — Will NASA will be able to meet its target date of sending astronauts back to the Moon by 2028? — And a lot more. Show notes; [00:03:05] A listener asks Ken about the 2019 Trim study by Gregory Fahy and colleagues in Aging Cell, which reported reversal of epigenetic aging and signs of thymic regeneration in nine healthy men treated with the growth hormone, DHEA, and metformin. [00:06:56] Ken responds to a question about the market being flooded with protein supplements. The listener asks if whether there’s a critical difference between whey protein and ready-to-drink protein shakes, and if there are any specific products he recommends. [00:10:50] A listener asks Ken about a recent article in Nature Reviews Neuroscience titled: [00:15:26] A listener asks Ken about a Chinese company called Moonshot AI and its open-weight model, Kimi K3. The listener references Gary Marcus who anticipates that the power of this model paired with the open-weight design will have immense implications. The listener asks for Ken’s take. [00:25:56] A listener mentions that they’ve heard that Ken likes to tell graduate students a fable about a rabbit pursuing their Ph.D. A listener asks Ken if he would share the fable. [00:30:15] A listener asks Ken about a study published in Jama Network Open by Norgren and company which suggests that higher meat consumption may be associated with lower Alzheimer’s risk for people carrying the APOE 4 gene variant, the strongest common genetic risk factor for late onset Alzheimer’s. [00:38:24] A listener mentions in their question for Ken that the Department of Health and Human Services recommends at least 150 minutes of moderate exercise per week, but this recommendation does not break down how much of that time should be spent on aerobic versus strength training. The listener goes on to mention a study in the that looked at identifying this sweet spot for resistance exercise, finding that between 90-119 minutes per week of weightlifting was associated with a 13 perent lower risk of premature death and a 27 percent reduction in neurological disease mortality, particularly Alzheimer’s. The listener also mentions that they are aware of IHMC’s ongoing clinical trial looking at the ability of exercise to mitigate the hallmarks of aging in people over 60 years old. The listener asks if this study is similarly trying to identify a sweet spot for resistance exercise, and if Ken has any recommendations on this topic. [00:46:32] Another listener mentions that they really enjoyed our interview with Doug Cooke on the Artimis II mission (episode 195), as well as our interview with Mike Griffin and Lisa Porter about NASA’s plan to return to the moon (episode 189). The listener goes on to mention that since then a Blue Origin rocket, one of the companies responsible for building a lunar lander, exploded on the launch pad in Florida. The listener asks if Ken is he’ still skeptical about the Artemis III mission architecture and timeframe in light of the recent news. [00:54:37] A listener asks Ken for his thoughts on the growing research efforts to investigate the feasibility of doing genetic testing on infants to identify their predisposition to specific diseases such as Alzheimer’s. [01:01:57] A listener asks for Kens thoughts on a study of creatine’s effects on physically active vegans. The study reported that 4 weeks of creatine supplementation improved lower-body power, especially jump height and flight time. But they did not find improvements in strength tests. [01:08:10] A listener asks for Ken’s thoughts on a recent White House report “Science: A New Golden Age”, which argues that the American scientific enterprise needs to be reformed and that agencies like NSF have become overly bureaucratic, slow, and risk averse. Links: Learn more about IHMC STEM-Talk homepage Ken Ford bio Ken Ford Wikipedia page

Today we have an Ask Me Anything episode that focuses on artificial intelligence. For the past year, AI has dominated the headlines. Perhaps because there’s so much media and public interest, as well as paranoia, about AI, listeners have been flooding our mailbox with AI-related questions. So, today’s AMA is an exclusive focused on artificial intelligence. For our listeners who have been sending questions about ketamine; NASA’s Artemis mission to the Moon; or whether high meat consumption leads to dementia; fear not, because we will follow up today’s episode in a few weeks with a second round of AMA. Dr. Ken Ford will be answering today’s AI questions. He has been working in AI since the 1980s and is a Fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. As a result, he is well-positioned to help us today to separate real advances in AI from hype, panic and science fiction. If you have questions for Ken and Dawn after listening to today’s episode, or any episode of STEM-Talk, email your questions to STEM-Talk producer Randy Hammer at rhammer.ihmc.org. Show notes: [00:03:15] Dawn opens our AMA episode on AI with a listener question for Ken on whether AI companies should be protected under section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act. [00:08:03] Following up on the previous question, a listener asks if Ken foresees a day where laws and courts will designate AI as a judicial person, in the same way that corporations have rights under the legal doctrine of corporate personhood. [00:10:55] A listener asks Ken for his thoughts on a recent article published in the Atlantic titled “The Data-Center Panic is Overblown: Critics are Inflating the Costs.” [00:16:09] A listener asks Ken a question regarding episode 171 of STEM-Talk, in which Ken discussed a June 2024 report by Leopold Aschenbrenner which predicted rates of growth in both compute resources and power requirements for AI data centers. The listener asks how well these predictions have held up in the following year. [00:22:19] Another listener question about data centers asks Ken what his thoughts are on the notion of solving the electricity costs and cooling requirements for data centers by building them in orbit and powering them via solar energy. [00:30:07] Moving on to the applications of AI, Peter Attia recently wrote about a study out of Harvard that suggests that today’s large language models perform extremely well on medical licensing exams and often arrive at the correct diagnosis yet still struggle with differential diagnosis. The listener asks what this means about the use of AI in medicine. [00:36:53] A listener asks Ken about repeated public statements by Anthropic’s CEO that their AI models, and those expected in the future, are already powerful and dangerous enough to justify concern, while at the same time Anthropic and other leading AI companies are continuing to employ these systems and cautioning governments against regulation that could slow down innovation. The listener asks Ken how to resolve this contradiction. [00:45:18] A listener writes that in a previous AMA, STEM-Talk episode 184, Ken objected to the use of the word hallucination to describe errors made by large-language models and asks Ken to expound on this. [00:53:28] A listener asks Ken whether current AI models are evolving from being fundamentally prediction engines to being able to truly understand and reason, or if they are just becoming better and more convincing prediction engines. [00:59:37] A listener writes to Ken, mentioning that a few years ago, a thousand technology experts and researchers signed a letter urging AI labs and executives to pause the development of highly advanced AI systems and tools. This letter, drafted through the not-for-profit Future of Life Institute, warned that AI developers were locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no one, not even their creators, can understand, predict or reliably control. The listener also states that they learned recently that ChatGPT 5 was programmed using an earlier version of ChatGPT. If the concerns of tech leaders are to be taken seriously, the listener wonders if it is a good idea to have earlier versions of ChatGPT programing later versions of ChatGPT? [01:07:45] A listener asks Ken about the process of training smaller AI models from larger models, a process called distillation. The listener asks how this process works and if this is a way for the cost of training large models to benefit everyone. [01:14:56] A listener asks Ken what it means for China’s Open Weight GLM 5.2 to be reported to have achieved near parity with Anthropic’s Mythos. On several cyber security and vulnerability discovery benchmarks, it seems alarming that GLM 5.2 is operating at roughly 1/6th the cost and remaining openly available for download and deployment. [01:22:34] A listener writes that they recently heard a story about someone who asked an AI whether they should walk or drive to a car wash in order to get their car washed when the car wash was close by their starting location. The AI in this condition recommended that they walk instead of drive. The listener asks why the AI was unable to give the obviously correct answer to a simple common-sense question. [01:29:05] For our final question in this AMA, a listener writes that, recently, nearly 200 researchers and economists signed a statement warning that as AI becomes more powerful it could take over a large share of human work and lead to widespread joblessness. The listener wants to know if Ken would have signed the statement and what he thinks of the statement’s three points: One: AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years. Two: This could drive an unprecedented transformation of our economy larger than the industrial revolution and over a vastly shorter timeframe, with large scale job displacement. Three: Economists, policy makers, and tech leaders must act now in order to understand the economic impacts of transformative AI and to build the incentives guardrails and institutions need to steer AI in a direction that compliments humans and benefits society. Links: Learn more about IHMC STEM-Talk homepage Ken Ford bio Ken Ford Wikipedia page Dawn Kernagis bio    

Today we have Dr. Scott Sherr, an internal medicine physician who specializes in Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy. Scott is the director of Integrative Hyperbaric Medicine and Heath Optimization at Hyperbaric Medical Solutions. It is a division of Hyperbaric Medical Solutions, an independent, hyperbaric oxygen therapy provider that aims to educate people about the benefits of hyperbaric oxygen therapy via telemedicine consulting. He also is COO of Troscriptions, which provides physician-formulated products including popular methylene blue products. In today’s interview, Scott talks about how he uses Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) to treat a number of health conditions. He also shares how he incorporates methylene blue into some of his treatment strategies and explains how HBOT is now being used as a complementary treatment for autoimmune diseases by helping reduce inflammation, improve blood flow and support immune function. Show notes: [00:03:29] Dawn tells Scott that she heard a story that Scott had his spine adjusted when he was just five minutes old.  She asks Scott if he can share what happened. [00:04:15] Dawn mentions that Scott grew up in New York on Long Island and that as a child he spent a lot of time at his father’s chiropractic office. Dawn asks Scott about his father and his practice. [00:05:38] Ken notes that Scott was into sports as a kid and asks him to talk about his childhood and what he was like as a kid. [00:07:09] Dawn notes that after high school, Scott left New York for the West Coast, landing at UCLA. Dawn asks Scott to talk about what led him there. [00:08:00] Dawn explains that Scott initially started to major in biology but quickly changed majors. Scott explains why he changed majors. [00:08:41] Dawn asks Scott why he chose to attend the University of Maryland for medical school after graduating from UCLA. [00:09:26] Dawn asks Scott about the story of how he met his wife at the University of Maryland. [00:09:50] Dawn pivots back to Scott’s love of music, mentioning that Scott and three other medical school students at Maryland formed a band called The Airport Rocking Chairs. Scott describes how the band came together and how they performed at gigs around the Baltimore/D.C. area. [00:11:16] Ken asks Scott to talk about how his early ambition upon entering medical school was to find a way to bridge the gap between conventional and alternative/chiropractic medicine. [00:12:54] Ken explains that in Scott’s third year of medical school, he did rotations at the University Shock and Trauma Facility. Ken asks Scott to talk about why this was such an important experience for Scott. [00:14:32] Dawn explains that hyperbaric chambers are used to treat injuries like necrotizing fasciitis and severe wounds. Dawn asks Scott to talk about finding a hyperbaric chamber in the basement of the University Shock and Trauma Facility and how that led to his fascination with the potential for hyperbaric oxygen therapy. [00:15:51] Dawn asks Scott to talk about how his initial research on hyperbaric therapies led him to conclude that they were being vastly underutilized in conventional medicine. [00:16:31] Dawn mentions that people are likely familiar with hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in terms of treating divers suffering from decompression sickness. She asks Scott to give a primer on the mechanisms by which HBOT affects the body and why it has potential to treat other conditions besides decompression sickness. [00:19:38] Ken asks Scott to talk more about other conditions, both acute and chronic, that HBOT might be helpful in treating. [00:22:51] Dawn asks about Scott’s experience as a hospitalist, which is an internal medicine physician who acts as a primary care physician in a hospital, and how this experience gave him a unique perspective on the strengths and limitations of modern medicine. [00:25:13] Ken asks Scott if it’s fair to say that his experience as a hospitalist was foundational in developing his understanding of patient care and healthspan. [00:26:51] Dawn explains that when Scott’s wife received a fellowship at Stanford University, Scott eventually left his career as a hospitalist to serve as the medical director for a hyperbaric medicine facility in the San Francisco Bay area. Dawn asks Scott to talk about how this experience deepened his understanding and expertise in hyperbaric oxygen therapy. [00:28:26] Ken asks Scott to talk about his relationship with Dominic D’Agostino, who was our recent guest on STEM-Talk episode 196, and who is very active in the field of hyperbaric oxygen therapy. [00:30:48] Dawn mentions that during Scott’s work as a hospitalist, he began to develop a more integrated approach to hyperbaric medicine, taking nutritional status, sleep patterns, mitochondrial function, and a number of other factors into consideration. Doing this work, Scott noticed that a number of patients would require weeks or months of preparation before beginning HBOT, contrary to the status quo of the time. Dawn asks Scott to talk about his insights and how this experience changed his views on medicine. [00:33:19] Dawn asks Scott to talk about the evolution of his work in developing an integrative hyperbaric medicine model and how he caught the attention of HBOT practitioners around the world. [00:35:21] Ken notes that interest in hyperbaric oxygen therapy has grown substantially in the last 20 years and goes on to mention that a particularly promising application of HBOT is as a complementary treatment for autoimmune diseases, being shown to reduce inflammation, improve blood flow and support immune function. Ken asks Scott to talk in depth about HBOT in the context of autoimmune disease treatment. [00:39:13] Following up on Scott’s mention of epigenetic changes following HBOT, Ken asks if this has been directly measured and if so, how long are these changes sustained. [00:41:14] Dawn asks Scott about the potential for HBOT to be used for athletes looking to speed up their recovery times from injuries. [00:43:19] Dawn asks Scott if there are certain populations who should avoid HBOT. [00:46:27] In order to optimize HBOT, Dawn explains that Scott works with people to tailor their treatment to their individual needs and asks Scott to walk listeners through how this process works in practice. [00:50:00] Ken notes that most HBOT studies describe dosages of HBOT in terms of oxygen concentration, oxygen pressure and number of sessions. He asks Scott how he defines a “dose” biologically and what metrics he uses to tell whether a patient has received enough treatment to induce durable change? [00:53:40] Ken asks Scott if his experience treating patients has informed him on different characteristics that can predict whether a patient will have a robust response to HBOT. [00:56:01] Dawn mentions that the benefits of HBOT are often explained in terms of either improved oxygen delivery or improved mitochondrial signaling and neuroplasticity. Dawn asks Scott what mechanisms are most important in the context of chronic neurological disease. [00:58:04] Dawn asks Scott for his thoughts on the hyperoxic-hypoxic paradox (HHP) as an explanation of HBOT-induced adaptation. [01:00:28] Ken asks Scott if he could only measure three variables before and after HBOT treatment, what would they be. [01:03:43] Ken goes on to asks Scott what he sees as the most important unanswered question in HBOT today. [01:06:22] Dawn mentions that in 2017 Scott met Dr. Ted Achacoso, who is the founder of Health Optimization Medicine. Dawn asks Scott to explain how Ted introduced him to a fundamentally different framework for understanding health. [01:10:08] Circling back to the topic of bridging the gap between conventional and alternative medicine, Dawn mentions that Scott has become part of a practice that isn’t afraid to tap into therapies that break from conventional medicine. As an example, Dawn explains that Scott sometimes integrates psychedelic therapy with HBOT. Dawn asks Scott to talk about the framework he uses, combining HBOT with psychedelic therapy. [01:13:56] Ken mentions that Scott also incorporates methylene blue into some of his treatment strategies, Ken directs listeners interested in learning more about how methylene blue can improve cognitive function and energy production to listen to STEM-Talk episode 191 with Francisco Gonzalez-Lima. Ken asks Scott to talk about his use of methylene blue in his practice. [01:20:15] Dawn asks Scott where people can go to learn more about him and his practice. [01:22:33] Ken asks Scott if he has any new projects looming on the horizon. [01:23:54] Dawn closes our interview with Scott by asking if he still plays guitar and if his old band The Airport Rocking Chairs have any plans for a reunion. Links: Scott Sherr bio Learn more about IHMC STEM-Talk homepage Ken Ford bio Ken Ford Wikipedia page Dawn Kernagis bio  

Our guest today is Doug Cooke, an aerospace consultant who spent 38 years at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston and NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.  STEM-Talk host and IHMC founder Dr. Ken Ford, a former Associate Director of NASA’s Ames Research Center and Director of NASA’s Center of Excellence in Information Technology, interviewed Doug just four days after the astronauts of NASA’s Artemis II mission splashed down in the Pacific Ocean following a historic 10-day roundtrip from the Earth to the Moon. In today’s episode, Ken and Doug discuss the Artemis mission as well as NASA’s plans to return humans to the lunar surface by 2028. Doug also shares his concern that China could one day surpass America’s leadership role in human spaceflight. During his 38 years at NASA, Doug played critical roles in the Space Shuttle, International Space Station and Human Exploration spaceflight programs. During the last three years of his NASA career, he served as Associate Administrator of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, which oversees the development of systems critical to NASA’s plans for human exploration of the Moon and Mars, including the Artemis program. Show notes: [00:04:05] Ken opens our interview with Doug by talking about the Artemis II mission, which is the first crewed mission beyond low earth orbit since Apollo 17 in 1972. Harrison Schmidtt, who was on Apollo 17, was our guest on episode 4. Ken asks Doug for his key takeaways of the Artemis II mission, which set the record for a manned mission from Earth, traveling 252,756 miles into space and breaking Apollo 13’s record. [00:06:18] Ken explains that the Artemis missions signal a new age of space exploration as well as the beginning of a new space race between the U.S. and China. NASA aims to land humans on the Moon by 2028 while China expects to land humans on the moon in 2030. Ken has previously stated that he does not have confidence in NASA’s current mission architecture to achieve NASA’s stated goal of 2028, and asks Doug for his thoughts on the matter. [00:07:28] Ken asks if it is true that Yuri Gagarin, who become the first human to fly into space, is what initially sparked Doug’s interest in science and space. [00:08:54] Ken notes that Gagarin’s orbit around the earth inspired President Kennedy to vow that the United States would ramp up its space program and become the first nation to land a man on the moon. Ken mentions that he believes the Apollo 11 mission, which landed astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the lunar surface, was one the greatest technological advances in world history. Ken asks Doug for his thoughts on the success of the Apollo program. [00:10:28] Ken mentions that Doug went to college at Texas A&M and majored in aerospace engineering. Kens asks Doug how he got a job at NASA after graduating. [00:12:21] Ken explains that Doug was instrumental in the development of the space shuttle and the International Space Station during his time at NASA. Doug talks about what it was like working on those projects at NASA. [00:15:16] Ken mentions that Doug also had an instrumental role in the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS), and the broader Exploration Technology Program. Ken points out that Doug became head of the exploration technology program in 1990 under then NASA Associate Administrator Mike Griffin, who was our guest on episodes 134 and 189. Ken asks Doug about meeting Mike. [00:16:17] Ken mentions that Mike Griffin and Lisa Porter were our guests on episode 189, where they voiced concerns about NASA’s current plans for a return to the moon. Ken goes on to mention that near the end of Doug’s career at NASA, he was the head of Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD), which is responsible for the development of systems critical to NASA’s plans for future exploration of the Moon and Mars. Ken asks Doug to talk about his role as head of the directorate and the work he did there. [00:18:55] Ken explains that Doug has written extensively on the issues with the Artemis mission architecture, most notably in a recent article for space news. Before jumping into the article, Ken asks Doug to talk about why it is important and also a national-security concern that we return to the moon before China. [00:21:12] Looping back to Doug’s op-ed in Space News, Ken notes that Doug stressed the need for NASA to develop a plan-B for the Artemis mission, with Doug and others noting that without a plan-B, the U.S. risks of losing the space race to the Moon. Doug has also gone on record to say that China has a far simpler, more direct, and more technically conservative plan than NASA. Ken asks Doug to elaborate on this. [00:22:37] Ken asks Doug to talk about the issues he and others have identified with NASA’s current proposed landing system. [00:26:14] Ken asks Doug to give a better understanding for the listeners of just how tall the proposed SpaceX lander is, and why that is a potential problem for not only landing on the moon in the proposed locations, but also for the astronauts exiting and entering. [00:28:51] Ken asks Doug to talk about what plan-B for Artemis looks like. [00:30:12] Ken asks Doug about the powerful thrust generation of the SpaceX lander. This raises the concern of regolith blast and generating significant debris fields while landing and thus reducing the scientific value of the region immediately surrounding the landing site. [00:30:59] Ken asks if Doug has any other thoughts on a potential plan-B. [00:33:02] Ken notes that the success of the mission hinges on the least proven element, namely the lander. While other elements of the mission architecture are well established, the hardest and least tested elements are normally the weakest links. Ken asks Doug’s thoughts on this position. [00:34:31] Ken asks Doug to talk about the complexity of the Artemis mission architecture and that it is largely driven by the Lander and NASA’s requirements.  There was a high interest in re-usability which increased complexity. Neither of the two Landers under development are an optimal design for a lunar lander. [00:35:37] Ken asks Doug about the role of commercial companies sometimes called “new space” in space exploration. [00:37:02] Ken asks Doug if he feels discouraged by the fact that the U.S. has squandered a 60-year head start in space exploration. [00:37:36] Ken explains that China aims to send humans to Mars by 2050, and NASA aims to do the same by 2040, while Elon Musk proposes to send humans to Mars by 2029, which Ken says is a completely untenable notion. Ken notes that statements such as that from Musk vastly understate the difficulty entailed in a Mars mission. Given that Doug was part of the early planning of a Mars mission at NASA, he asks Doug to talk about the challenges that such a mission faces. [00:42:17] Ken and Doug discuss the problem with EDL (Entry Descent and Landing) that Mars uniquely poses. [00:43:09] Ken also brings up the issue of crew health and wellness. By the time they reach Mars, given the extended time spent in a high-radiation, micro-gravity environment, maintaining crew health in transit is critical to mission success. [00:43:47] Ken poses the concern that if it becomes likely that China will reach the moon before the U.S. can return, then NASA or the political leadership may adopt the attitude that we’ve already been to the moon, and that we should just jump straight to Mars. [00:46:24] Ken asks for Doug’s thoughts on NASA’s current leadership and workforce. [00:49:01] Ken quizzes Doug about the aims, goals, and mission architecture of Artemis III and IV. [00:51:16] Ken notes that the design of Artemis III might negatively impact the overall mission goal of landing on the Moon by 2028. [00:52:04] Ken shifts to talk more about Artemis IV, elements of which, Ken notes, need much more testing to be ready. [00:52:58] Ken closes our interview noting that Doug will return for another interview on STEM-Talk in 2028 to see if Artemis is on schedule. Ken ends by asking Doug about how he started his hobby of collecting Civil War artifacts after he retired and moved to Gettysburg, as well as his hobby of collecting antique cars. [00:55:17] Ken closes by asking Doug to name the favorite car he has collected. Links: Doug Cooke bio Learn more about IHMC STEM-Talk homepage Ken Ford bio Ken Ford Wikipedia page