HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | NotGMan's commentslogin

Anti AI freaks + competitors.

>> The six deaths in Pennsylvania included a newborn with congenital measles, whose mother was severely ill at the time of birth; a 6-week-old who was too young to be vaccinated; a “perfectly healthy” 18-year-old; a 20-year-old with leukemia; a 40-year-old with underlying conditions; and a 39-year-old with underlying conditions. All the deceased were unvaccinated.

So it wasn't actually measles except for one case?

This is the same low IQ level "with covid vs of-covid" reporting that journos paid by pharma like to do.


Have you ever taken into account that perhaps it's you who has failed to understand anything about what is actually going on?

Don? Is that you?

Yes honey, you want so more Trump derangement syndrome? I have an infinite supply of it for you.

Yes I can see that; sadly I'm no expert in helping people in your situation but I hope you find your way out - it's truly a terrible thing to be a prisoner of your own mind. Wish you all the best.

Often doctors miss rare diseases and gaslight patients that they don't have them.

AI is great for this since it has encyclopedic knowledge.



Which they (probably?) should otherwise they will overtreat their patients for false positives.


Averages are not much use if you are the patient whose diagnosis was missed


The first time I heard "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras" I was appalled. How about we just empirically determine where the hoofbeats are coming from before eliminating the killer zebras as a possibility?


Because we have limited resources, time and every intervention can cause more harm. For example, you don't want to get an MRI every time you get a headache - it would be counterproductive to you, drain resources from a system which needs to handle more patients, and regularly make you visit an environment with potential infectious diseases. Where we have a quick and simple empirical test, we often apply it and the available options are growing - for example we have quick tests for a number of respiratory diseases, which wasn't available earlier.


Echoing others, but not even rare diseases. I had perioral dermatitis, first result on google for the symptoms. I went to 4 dermatologists over 4-5 months who failed to diagnose it, assuring me it absolutely wasn't a fungus, instead telling me it was eczema and prescribing topical steroids (as is their wont). The real solution was washing my face a bit more.


I wonder if any doctors feel depressed about losing "creativity", or are instead yeah I can help diagnose and cure more people.


AI is going to be both a boon and a bane for doctors. Its "good enough" behavior will lead to complacency like it does any place where the automated system is "good enough" but the system still wants human validation. This will without a doubt result in some preventable tragedies that will end with more work and check lists (and probably not enough accountability). But there are other places where it will absolutely free up mental energy to focus more on the patient.

I was talking to my own doctor and their experience with a new note taking / transcription AI app they've been using, having worked on medical software before. One of the problems I noticed when designing software then was that software likes its categorized fields, with data entered just the right way and in just the right order. But medical work is almost never that neat and tidy. Patients and other medical professionals give you information in whatever order things come to their mind in, or in whatever order their own system and paperwork displays it. A simple prescription consisting of a patient's name, DOB, medication, medication form, dispensing quantity, refills and dosing instructions might be given to a provider in any order of those fields and no matter what order your software chooses, it won't be the same order as someone else giving it to you. Most providers that used the software I worked on resorted to hand writing everything down and filling it all in later, or having to ask for repetition over and over as they clicked through various fields trying to remember everything before it flicked out of their short term memory or the other person moved on. And as more and more systems and regulations require everything to be entered into electronic records, this has become more of a problem. To the point where you go to some appointments and you often don't even see your doctor's face because they're stuck behind a terminal nodding along as they try to capture everything you say into the specific fields in the system. AI tooling has the potential (and at least from my own doctor's experience, is already showing that potential) to free up the mental effort spent on getting the right data into the right fields. AI can do a great job of understanding that a free text field that says:

    Fucitol tab 25mg qid
    John Smith 01/01/75
    #30 3 months
and a free text field that says:

    Fucitol 25mg tablet
    30 tabs, 4x per day
    3 refills
    Smith, John 1975-01-01
say the same things, and get those things into the right fields in the record for you. They still need to go back and check it (and see the previous caveat about "good enough" systems) but by freeing the doctor from the mental load of intentionally categorizing all of the data they're hearing while simultaneously trying to reason through what all that data means and enter it at the same time they have more mental room to actually pay attention to the things the patient is saying, the things they're doing and the things the doctor is seeing.

And one thing I hope is that it makes switching doctors if you need to safer and more effective. The sheer volume of information a new patient can bring with them if they have all their medical records is massive and sorting through it all is likely something we'll never give our providers enough time and money to do. Things will get missed, or doctors will defer (consciously or not) to the diagnosis already listed, even if a more thorough review might reveal the diagnosis was wrong. An AI system designed to review an influx of data with an adversarial eye, or at least an eye towards looking for missed possibilities or potential reasons for the patient's dissatisfaction with the previous provider could go a long way towards helping end the sorts of "I went through 10 doctors all of which told me it was all in my head/I should try losing weight/I can't be experiencing this issue at my age, and then finally the last doctor had just finished reading a paper about how XYZ can cause these symptoms and now I'm finally getting treatment" stories anyone with friends or family with chronic health problems probably has heard more than once.


Here in the UK, they will try their hardest to not refer to the consultant, will do the basic blood tests and tell you that you are all right, take pain killers or anti allergy medicine. Its such a terrible system


The problem might be more that doctors don’t want to order expensive tests for those rare conditions .

AI might have similar reservations depending on standard of care


The problem is that insurance won't authorize unless the doctor has a good reason to suspect a rare decease with expensive tests. Even then they will verify that the doctor has followed protocol and gone thru all the cheap tests first.


It sounds like both of you are looking at this with the US healthcare system in mind, and that non-reviewed "study" probably does too.

…which actually makes sense. "The AI said so" might be a magic trick in that absolute hellscape of bad care and financial racketeering.


Not likely. The Insurance industry will train their own A.I that says whatever they want it to say.


Oh god these word games... no wander some people get nothing done.


Where was Terence Tao where other workers were being replaced by immigrants, robots and other automation?

Academics and white collars now get to experience what blue collar workers experienced in the past.

Same as what developers in USA experienced who were and are getting replaced by Indians.


He grew up in Australia, didn't he? He was the one doing the replacing I suppose.


Pretty much every published paper I see now is a combination of Chinese and Indian immigrant authors. Given enough time they all become American. I don’t see what the problem is.


He is a imigrant.


Author conflates "why do kids want to learn in the first place" with "chatbots only teach mechanisms".

All public and most private schools already only teach mechanisms.

With chatbots you can at least ask it a hundrer times to explain something if you don't get it, you can't do that with teachers, most of whom just rattle about their curricilum.


Midwit article.

People like the author actually belive that there is no chance of real world interactions happening.

Eg what is the bacteria jumps to some other organism? What if it mutates? What if the birds eat the mosquitoes and carry a mutated bacteria elsewhere?

There is a reason why you need autistic level safety for such projects, and even then things like this might happen.

It's completely impossible to guarantee theses things, no matter how long you study it in a lab.

Some people just aren't capable of thinking more than 1 step ahead.


The Wolbachia bacteria already infect a majority of insect species and are widespread. They are not "mutated" in the sense that they are lab created, but occur naturally. Birds eat infected insects every day, and so do you probably every now and then by accident...


Okay, now, when AI and robots can do surgeries and advise people better than modern doctors do (the bar is not that high, ask anyone with an autoimmune disease or gut issues)...


>> The truth is that we don’t really know what exactly makes love work, such that we can articulate and implement it on a societal scale. It’s too messy, too complex, too idiosyncratic, and too human. Anyone who claims otherwise probably has a course to sell you on negging and pickup artistry.

The author, who is a gay man, obviously didn't study any pickup material since if he would he'd realize how wrong he is. If he'd study pickup material and the surrounding works he'd realize that what women write in these preferences is completely meaningless so his example of meeting a guy as a guy on this website is completely useless for men meeting women, since women do not work like that.

All of these algorithmic matching will become totaly useless and wrong depending on the behaviour of the male. In a completely mismatched pair the women will fawn over the guy if his behaviour is congruent with what attracts females. And even on a complete match the women will run away in panic if the guy is a total tool sexual-behaviour-wise to what (dis)attracts women.

Also: nothing will solve marriage problem as long as women are in the workforce.

Look up books by Rollo Tomassi, he has a blog and has written on these topics if you are one of those "citation needed" people.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: