Almost none of the research these guidelines are based on takes genetics into account, so it pretty much all needs to be redone. The guidelines are probably fine for most people, but let’s face it, if you’re a regular HN participant then your kids probably aren’t anywhere close to the median.
Why should genetics play a role here? TVs have only existed for a century. These guidelines might err on the side of caution, but it is a good thing considering how fast screen time among kids is growing, and how little we know about its long-term effects.
These should be universal, even if some culture will first disagree and want to do things differently because they think they know better, in the end it will converge to the same, like it did for lead paint on toys, asbestos in housing, radium-dial watches, thalidomide for morning sickness for pregnant women, X-rays for shoe-fitting, etc.
Screens might be less harmful or even good for some subset of kids, and we might be harming those kids by excessively limiting their screen time. We don’t know until we do the research.
Yeah my personal experience has been that Gemini is much more useful for trying to understand complex health issues than OpenAI or Anthropic models. The standard of proof just seems to be much better calibrated, in terms of understanding that a potential treatment that is potentially dangerous probably needs more evidence backing it than another potential treatment without much downside risk.
Absolutely. As one of my physician friends told me: “half the time, the best plan is, ‘We'll have to wait and see.’”
But, as a patient, it's hard to find comfort in that. I think that might be what drives the craziness in “non-traditional” approaches to treating disease. Could it be that people using fruititarian diets and essential oils for cancer are doing so because they don’t understand enough to bear a “wait and see” situation?
Argon explained the problem to me in such depth that I could be content with my basic treatment plan. ChatGPT went way off the deep end, suggesting things like high-dose niacinamide treatment (which is admittedly being evaluated in clinical trials, but comes with a host of other side effects).
To be fair, try getting cancer and then consider how you feel about “wait and see” even when you understand enough to know it’s the advice with the best evidence.
> I think it would be totally incoherent to say that copyrighted information is essentially fair game to include in your model but the outputs of your model are privileged against being included in other models.
IANAL, but going from copyrighted texts to an AI model likely constitutes a new original creation, not a slavish reproduction. Whereas going from one AI model to another is more likely to be considered a slavish reproduction reproduction, although arguably AI models are not copyrightable to the extent that the weights are objective facts, like entries in a phone book.
Downloading and redistributing companies' exact AI models would violate copyright. Querying multiple AI models to form your own model with a unique set of weights does not.
Realistically the companies will organise their data through a network which will involve distributing and storing the copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder. This is in and of itself generally ruled to be a breach of copyright irrespective of whether it is fed into a model or not.
Does it? Isn't this basically the same as how cellular companies can figure out exactly where someone is calling from as long as their phone is pinging 3+ towers? Just connect the towers into a box and you have the same result.
My point is that autism is already treated by the medical system as many disorders and not as a single thing. The reason they all share a common label is for political reasons, where it makes sense to group them together. But the actual medical system does not treat them as having anything in common, let alone as being homogeneous.
Ah, I can see how that would be the case. But I thought it was moving in the other direction? I am extremely ignorant here, so correct me, but the only example I know of is that they removed Asberger's Syndrome and turned it into generic Autism.
Yes, that was a political decision based on the fact that people with Asperger’s weren’t able to access sufficient social support. But from a medical perspective, the two have basically nothing to do with each other; Asperger’s is primarily about the connectivity between brain regions, whereas (traditional) autism is more about functionality within brain regions. Obviously there is a lot of overlap and this isn’t necessarily the mainstream scientific interpretation, but I think it’s the most parsimonious way to define these terms.
I mean you can literally upload your genetic methylation variants and bloodwork into Gemini and have it one shot a custom treatment plan for you, how much more personalized do you want? Obviously if you want hand holding from the medical system you can pay a psychiatrist or a functional doctor to do the same thing, but at this point the idea that treatment isn't personalized enough is frankly absurd.
No, AI can greatly help with research. It helped me a lot during my cancer treatment, which was very complicated. Which makes sense, every cancer is different, and mine was quite crafty and unique.
But that's it. It helps with research, that's it. You still need doctors, typically multiple different doctors of different specialties, if you want correct treatment. The AI is a good starting point, so you can start asking your doctor the right questions, but it's never the ending point. At least, in my opinion. I'm sure it depends on the condition, and how much it follows a template.
North American waters also. The waters off the coast of Cape Cod are being decimated by Chinese-funded vessels, based on what I've heard from local fishermen there at least.
It's going to be replicated because we already know the mechanism of action. That said, many/most people would probably be better off solving the problem more upstream via whatever B-complex vitamins they need based on their bloodwork and DNA methylation variants.
> the reality is that engineers are pumping out code faster than the humans can understand and (honestly) review it
The word "engineering" means doing things using a repeatable process to get predictable results. If you can get predictable results (e.g. guaranteeing the absence of data integrity issues, security issues, anything that will cause downtime, etc.) without looking at the code, you're still doing the work of engineering.
Your job as an engineer is to choose high-value problems to work on, solve them in the correct way, and guarantee that the functional and non-functional requirements are met. If you no longer need to read the code to guarantee that it has the right set of ilities, then I'm not sure that's obviously a bad thing, as long as the ilities you're enforcing result in a codebase that is sustainably secure and maintainable over the long term.
> as long as the ilities you're enforcing result in a codebase that is sustainably secure and maintainable over the long term.
Perfect example of begging the question.
Vibe coding works great as long as vibe coding works great.
Personally, I'd love to see how you enforce security and long-term maintainability without looking at the code cuz we need to add that to our build pipelines ASAP.
> I've lately been wondering if schizophrenia causes this connection-seeing, or if connections cause indicators of schizophrenia/psychosis.
IANAD, but my reading of the literature is that the genes for schizophrenia cause connection seeing, which on its own is mostly net neutral (slightly negative on average, but positive for many people). But it’s not having the ability to think critically about those connections, along with trauma and lack of social support, that causes this ability to see connections to manifest as mental illness. The genes for schizophrenia on their own though are, on average, only slightly net negative in terms of their impact.
reply