11–20 of 68 posts
Honest question: how much top-tier ML research comes out of IBM Research? I feel like they get what they paid for---and they pay shit from what I hear.
i.e. it's more like predictive text input than anything. If it makes it faster for you to diagnose, makes harder to diagnose stuff easier, and recommends the right treatment most of the time then it saves the doctor some time and energy.
The only question is whether it does that.
We're putting a lot of faith in tools that can best be described as immature. I don't think it's out of the question to get A.I. (not speaking of Watson, which is A.I. adjacent) to the point where it can perform perfectly at human intelligence tasks. The point is to have these systems perform better than their human counterparts (at least, I think that should be aim for something like Watson for Health). The people w…
ML performs very well for specific well defined tasks that have an obvious outcome and are highly narrow in scope.
Cancer is a disease that we can't even treat ourselves in many cases. It requires a great deal of creativity and critical thinking to reach solutions on a case by case basis. Who is so arrogant they thought this should be replaced by a bunch of overhyped software?
Honest question: how much top-tier ML research comes out of IBM Research? I feel like they get what they paid for---and they pay shit from what I hear.
Honest question: how much top-tier ML research comes out of IBM Research? I feel like they get what they paid for---and they pay shit from what I hear.
That said, I don't think IBM Watson has published much top-tier research.
Out of something from science fiction.. would an "issue" like this ever be the type of problem where the AI can "understand" the cancer better than we can and see where a certain treatment might be more beneficial than we've thought of? Or is this just a plain old failure?
Not to mention that even if the AI technology here was decent (which it doesn't appear to be) it suffered greatly from a dearth of samples. Machine learning requires big data, and cancer treatment data is, in many instances, just not big enough. An AI solution would need millions of well-labeled, perfectly formatted cases to learn from; there may be thousands of those for a particular subtype of cancer, but there's n…
Out of something from science fiction.. would an "issue" like this ever be the type of problem where the AI can "understand" the cancer better than we can and see where a certain treatment might be more beneficial than we've thought of? Or is this just a plain old failure?
That's okay, though, right? We're not talking about fully automating diagnosis and treatment. We're talking about using a tool to help doctors diagnose and treat more effectively. i.e. it's more like predictive text input than anything. If it makes it faster for you to diagnose, makes harder to diagnose stuff easier, and recommends the right treatment most of the time then it saves the doctor some time and energy. Th…
Honest question: how much top-tier ML research comes out of IBM Research? I feel like they get what they paid for---and they pay shit from what I hear.
I don't think that top-tier research is necessarily equal to top pay. Otherwise universities would not stand any chance. That said, I don't think IBM Watson has published much top-tier research.
Url changed from https://gizmodo.com/ibm-watson-reportedly-recommended-cancer... , which points to this.