Have we already seen that impact? Or is it speculative? Because the speculative part is discussed all the time

The issue is, you kind of have to not get wrecked by the negative impacts to collect those positive impacts.

Unfortunately, "AI that's competent at bioweapon R&D" might be an easier mark to hit than "AI that can put a dent in the aging process". And biorisks can have a very favorable "resource input -> suffering output" rate of returns.

Cutting sugars, not smoking, regular checkups, watching your weight, managing stress, and getting enough exercise and sleep still trumps any other therapeutic-based life extension approach. But I know, I know, it's actual effort, and technology is about making things easier so it's a non-starter.

But I do agree that if we're on the verge* of von Neumann replicators and getting replaced by Pokhumans** to cheer on the ASI, then curing cancer, immortality and cryo-suspension are likely trivial achievements in comparison.

*Nope, not even close, but don't tell that to the ASI cultists, that's like questioning the veracity of the gospels now.

**Yes, that's the strong claim in AI 2027. And the democratic party apparently believes it.