'I won't trust AI': Readers share mixed reaction to AI tools that calculate people's biological ages
Scientists have developed AI tools to measure a person's true "biological age." Live Science asked readers whether they would be comfortable using these tools.
Scientists are utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) to determine people's biological ages, a measure of how well a person's bodily systems are functioning. Unlike chronological age, biological age provides insight into the risk of age-related diseases like cancer or dementia. Various AI algorithms analyze different features such as epigenetic markers or voice characteristics to calculate a person's biological age.
We surveyed our readers about their trust in AI tools for measuring biological age and received responses from over 170 individuals.
A majority of respondents, 44%, expressed a cautious approach, stating that they would accept the results but treat them with skepticism. Another 23% of readers were positive about the potential benefits of such AI tools, believing they could provide valuable health information. However, the majority of reader comments seemed to suggest the opposite sentiment.
One commenter warned against the technology, exclaiming "NO!!! Unplug it!!! Heed the warnings!" Another echoed similar concerns, declaring "A.I. is dangerous! It's often going beyond its programming and doing things it's not supposed to do! Trusting it with my life is something I will never do!"
Many readers highlighted the need for further research and cautioned against trusting the results prematurely. One individual suggested waiting a few years until genetic research expands, anticipating more accurate and meaningful results. Another reader questioned the reliability of AI tools, expressing a fundamental distrust in technology's ability to provide objective truth.
The comments reflect a mixed reaction to AI's potential in calculating biological ages, with some cautiously embracing the technology's possibilities while others remain skeptical and wary.
Written by urgent.news from Live Science's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
