Ask A Genius 1381: Delay Social Security? AI, Longevity, and the Break-Even Bet at 70
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15
Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen weigh whether to delay Social Security until 70, factoring in AI-driven medical advances. They discuss how diagnostics, organ regeneration, and fall-prevention tech might extend life—and healthspan—for aging populations. With longevity rising, Rosner asks: is it worth waiting for a bigger check in a longer life?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do we have any more stuff to talk about?
Rick Rosner: Obviously, yes. Here is a question I have been meaning to ask, and I have not yet. Carole and I are trying to determine when I should start taking Social Security payments.
The deal is that the break-even point is 82 years old. You get more money per year the longer you wait, but it is structured so that no matter when you start, if you live to 82, it all totals roughly the same.
You can start taking payments as early as 62 and as late as 70. However, past 70, the checks stop increasing. Between 62 and 70, your monthly payment nearly doubles. However, if you do not live to 82, you leave money on the table. If you live past 82, you win—you are past the break-even. So the question becomes: How long are you going to live?
Here is the real question: How many extra years of life will AI-driven medical advances add?
A series of medical breakthroughs powered by AI will likely happen in the next decade. Will they buy someone in their seventies an extra five years? Ten years? More? Moreover, will AI keep advancing enough to add even more years once they’re in those added years?
Jacobsen: That is a good framework. Most of the gains will come in the cancer, heart disease, and critical emergency categories—plus organ replacement, diagnostics, and highly personalized lifestyle optimization.
Not prosthetics, such as organ regeneration, tissue scaffolding, and early prediction models. Understanding what works based on the person’s complete genomic and biological profile.
It will start to feel routine—like how we think of antibiotics or MRI scans. There will be more precision and timing in treatment, earlier intervention, and likely better maternal and infant mortality outcomes, too, which will artificially raise the life expectancy averages.
Rosner: Sure, but that is for the population as a whole. I am asking: How many more years of life will AI give someone 70 years old in 2030? I will be 70 in 2030. A conservative estimate is five extra years, especially with early detection, cardiovascular advances, and metabolic profiling.
An optimistic estimate? 10 to 15 years, if organ regeneration, senolytic therapies, and AI-guided drug discovery scale well. Moreover, if you are already healthy—good habits, no major conditions—you are in a prime group to benefit. You are the early adopter generation for this stuff.
So I might live to 90 or 95—and potentially keep working or doing creative stuff? That is the bet. The fundamental shift will be that those added years could be healthy, not just a more prolonged decline. That is the part AI might change.
If we are thinking about life expectancy, and one more key thing, we should talk about not falling. Falls are a major contributor to senior mortality. If AI can help prevent falls through gait-protection systems or smart pants with built-in stabilizers, that could dramatically reduce deaths among older adults.
Jacobsen: Let’s say we reduce the number of deaths among people aged 70 and up. That alone could artificially raise the average lifespan, especially if it helps men, who generally do not live as long.
In the U.S., an average 70-year-old man might have 8 more years. But it varies. Native American men have much lower life expectancy, Black and Hispanic men a little lower, White men hit around that mark, and Asian men live longer, generally.
Moreover, to your point—if you have already reached 70, your life expectancy is probably higher than that 8-year average. More like 10 years, because you have already cleared many statistical hurdles.
However, here is a larger point. If you are looking at overall life expectancy numbers, and those numbers include infant and maternal mortality, then the total average gets artificially inflated by bringing down early-life deaths.
Rosner: Sure—but that doesn’t apply to someone already 70. I don’t give a shit about infant mortality in this conversation.
Jacobsen: I’m discussing how selectively framed metrics distort reality. If we only look at a general average, we miss how targeted gains, like helping a 70-year-old live to 89, can be statistically huge in that demographic.
So, when you ask whether to start Social Security now or wait until 70, it comes down to how long you expect to live. And if AI and medical science will add years, especially healthy years, then the calculation shifts.
Rosner: I am looking for reassurance: should I wait and get a bigger monthly check, assuming I’ll live long enough to benefit? Or should I start now and take what I can while kicking?
Thanks to AI-assisted medical advances, there’s a non-trivial chance that people who are 70 in the 2030s—like me—might live well past current projections.
Jacobsen: Yeah. And most of the improvements won’t come from AI alone, but from AI helping human researchers: accelerating diagnostics, optimizing treatments, personalizing care.
Rosner: And let’s be honest—the last decade doesn’t give us great numbers. COVID dragged U.S. life expectancy down. Moreover, 74% of Americans are overweight, which messes with national averages. So I won’t use the average American lifespan as my benchmark.
Medical science has increased life expectancy for conscientious, health-conscious people by around two years per decade over the past century.
Jacobsen: But in the AI era, that rate might double. We could talk four or five years per decade, or more, if things go well. The dream, of course, is to reach a point where each year that passes, life expectancy increases by more than a year. That would mean you are not just staying alive—buying time faster than spending it.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 