IBM Watson correctly diagnoses a form of leukemia

Post by ACow_Adonis » Sun, Aug 07, 2016, 2:34 AM UTC

bitmapbrother wrote: post #29

sk5t wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't cynical to insist on knowing the test's sensitivity and selectivity.

It's one thing to ask for additional information on how the test was conducted and another to automatically attribute it to a PR play that IBM likes to "milk every last drop of". That's cynical.

Post by scrollaway » Sun, Aug 07, 2016, 2:45 AM UTC

etangent wrote: post #10

oh_wow wrote: post #3

IBM's Watson scares me primarily because the source and data is not in the public domain. Something this powerful, and this rare should be given to humanity to better it. That said, I'm unsure how doing something like that would provide the right incentives for the research needed to create the next breakthrough.

1. It is most likely that Watson is far less powerful than advertised. Given enough trials, a pigeon could probably detect some forms of cancer that a human expert can't. [1] 2. I too would prefer that more open-source work (and published research) would come out of Watson project than it has been the case so far. However, there's a devil's advocate point to be made that closedness encourages diversity of approaches…

Post by tux1968 » Sun, Aug 07, 2016, 3:04 AM UTC

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #31

bitmapbrother wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one thing to ask for additional information on how the test was conducted and another to automatically attribute it to a PR play that IBM likes to "milk every last drop of". That's cynical.

Its not cynical if you've actually had any dealings with IBM and Watson. Edit: And when the hell did cynical become a bad word in silicon valley? I've had a number of posters on here respond to things "oh, stop being cynical!" as if that was some kind of contribution... I've got a word for people who are cynical. Decent scientists. Feynman would be rolling over in his grave...

Post by vonnik » Sun, Aug 07, 2016, 3:14 AM UTC

Post by tux1968 » Sun, Aug 07, 2016, 3:51 AM UTC

smallnamespace wrote: post #38

tux1968 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between cynical and skeptical, from google: "A skeptic doesn't believe anything without strong reasons, which is why it is also associated with doubt, especially when something hasn't been experienced yet. Cynicism is believing the worst of something or someone. It has nothing to do with evidence. It is an outlook on life."

> It has nothing to do with evidence. If you understand Bayesian reasoning, then we all have unjustifiable prior beliefs, perhaps due to innate personality, or due to our own experiences. Calling someone a cynic is often just a way to bash someone who has different priors. The better thing would be to ask where those priors come from, no? > Its not cynical if you've actually had any dealings with IBM and Watson. Mayb…