"The problem is that Johnson is expecting this to translate into defeating aging, which I very much do not expect."

I'm fairly confident Johnson is betting on future tech solving aging and his goal is to live long enough to be there for it by creating measurements and therapies for the health of every organ.

From his site: 

"2023: don’t die because we don’t know how long and well we can live "

"This time, our time, right now - the early 21st century - will be defined by the radical evolution of intelligence: human, AI and biology. Our opportunity is to be this exciting future. "
https://protocol.bryanjohnson.com/ 

Hey Adam, please review some of replies I've made to other commentators for issues I don't address here.

>ease of use

A keyboard shortcut, chrome extension that serves the results in a side bar or some other spot, autocomplete in the search bar, or bookmark would remove that friction. 

If I want to go to lesswrong, I hit ctrl-t for a new tab, type "les" and chrome completes the url. The same would apply.

>cognitive overhead

I do not think about those things for something that delivers me consistent value. If the starting premise is "I don't value this." It doesn't matter what comes after it.

>less time browsing

Wanting to spend less time doing semi-productive browsing isn't something a better search engine can fix - unless it's because the result quality is the reason the time is semi-productive.

Tried that previously. It limits the search results and it doesn't rank the results it simply spits out first results it finds on the first domain it searches. 

You can give the one I made a try to see what it mean. Don't be fooled by the number of pages it lists at the bottom - that's fake:  https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=cced60b51960f6137

Use cases: superconductor, Ukraine war, LLM development, diet or exercise, dealing with anxiety, etc. But you would only get results from a curated list of sites with higher epistemic standards.

I should have been more explicit in my initial post. I was relying on the word "rationalist" to do too much. 

No worries about negativity. It is exactly what I want, so thank you.

Yes, but instead of searching one domain (lesswrong), it would search ~100+ curated domains. Google currently limits the domains to ten.

>drowning in stuff to read

Suppose you wanted to find content on prioritizing what you read by people with similar interests or with higher standards than most writers in the google search results. 

Do you expect a search of LW will be more likely to deliver what you want than a search of LW +100 other sites? 

>Google is free, and supports limiting queries to specific domains.

The limit is ten sites.

>just search LW or EA

What if you could do both in one place plus search all these and the ACX's blogroll and similar sites?

>solution in search of a problem

Google search quality seems to not satisfy a large number of people: link. Not to say this idea will fix that for everyone.

 >value delivered

What if it cost $1-6 a month? Would you try it if it was free? Would you donate once or regularly if you liked it?

Unfortunately, I've found that appending rationalist to queries doesn't get the desired results. Instead you get this: link

If you could limit your search results to sites with a higher level of epistemics, would that be more compelling? There might be default set of sites, which you could customize and submit requests for additions to the corpus.

What price point would change your mind? Is the idea compelling enough that you would try a demo?

What utility would it need to provide to change your mind?

How about a search of sites curated for a higher level of epistemics? Can you think of any searches you might do where that would be useful?

Suppose it cost between $2-6 a month? Or, what price point would be enticing for you to try it?

My understanding is that google limits the search space to ten sites.

 >set of sites of my choosing

Perhaps a standard set of sites that could be customized with the option to submit requests for additions.

Thanks for the ideas.

Teenagers generally don't start learning to drive until they have had fifteen years to orient themselves in the world.

AI and teenagers are not starting from the same point so the comparison does not map very well.