Depends on how literally you mean it, in general, those most likely to say it wont think that humans are literally designed not to die and only do so because someone made a mistake, but more that humans might be redesigned or modified not to (or at least not from biological aging). Not a hard to find sentiment if you hang out in spaces with transhumanists, but I find the ones that overlap with AI bros, that tend to have an attitude like "this will totally happen in my lifetime and with no effort because the AI singularity is going to come and give us everything in a few years" impossible to talk to, because all too often they will cite even the tiniest listed improvement in any AI system as proof that literally everything possible or impossible is about to happen and then insist you arent paying attention when you give them skeptcism.

Yes, there are people who believe we will find a way to transcend death via technology. I personally think a world ruled by immortal omniwealthy methusalas that will never let even death release their boot from the necks of the common man is a bad thing, but...

I believe this is an idea most legitimately championed by Nick Bostrom. Here is a video explaining his perspective.

I feel like, at least from the stance of abstract philosophy, he makes some good points. And I'm not enough of a philosopher to refute them (though I'm sure some have). Personally, my stance is "I'll cross that bridge when I arrive at it" - I expect to die before that happens.

I’m also hung up on “Crypto is UBI”. Surely this is a one off crackpot quote and not a thing, right?