61–70 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s anecdotal though. For an opposite anecdote, airplanes have been pretty much the same since the 70s.
> airplanes have been pretty much the same since the 70s. you need to back your claims
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why aren't we already aware of what these applications are since ML has already been well-funded and hyped for about a decade? Basically what is the inflection point? Obviously this is subjective, but underwhelmed would be a compliment for how I feel about ChatGPT. I've been hearing about these near-term breakthroughs for nearly a decade, even working in the industry. And yet, the real-world progress is nothing co…
I’m not the OP, and I’m a radiographer. Big things are happening with image processing in radiology. ML/Deep Learning or whatever the marketing people call it is what is being done behind the scenes in Siemens ‘Deep Resolve’ for MR systems. It’s utterly transformed what we do. It adds signal in an initial processing stage in the k-space domain (I’d estimate 25%-30%) then reconstructs the image. Then it doubles the re…
Do you know if 'Deep Resolve' potentially introduces artifacts? I believe you that it's better. I'm trying to figure out if it's either
a) we developed a superior technology that is almost always better, but will very occasionally introduce noise that can be screened by a trained technician (or whatever)
b) we developed a superior technology that is literally better in every way when comparing final images
I'm not trying to discount a) here because if it's progress for the industry then that's still a win.
"That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced."
- Scientific American, Jan 2, 1909
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s anecdotal though. For an opposite anecdote, airplanes have been pretty much the same since the 70s.
Airplanes are a relatively poor anecdote. They have advanced in small but steady changes over time. The prevalence of the single aisle, 6 abreast seating of the 737 and A320 came about because airlines could reliably fill short to medium haul flight and were cost effective in other ways. We have more efficient engines, systems have gotten safer, etc. There is a lot of work behind the scenes with aircraft.
After that we got what? Less noise, improved fuel efficiency, increased range? I started flying about 25 years ago. I don't remember that flights were noisier. As for efficiency and range, I don't give a hoot. I care about ticket prices and flights happening on schedule. Prices have gone up, innovative fees piled up on top of them, delays are oh-so-common. As for safety, 25 years ago planes were crashing about as frequently as now. For regular people like me, the advances in safety were imperceptible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not the OP, and I’m a radiographer. Big things are happening with image processing in radiology. ML/Deep Learning or whatever the marketing people call it is what is being done behind the scenes in Siemens ‘Deep Resolve’ for MR systems. It’s utterly transformed what we do. It adds signal in an initial processing stage in the k-space domain (I’d estimate 25%-30%) then reconstructs the image. Then it doubles the re…
Thank you for responding. Do you know if 'Deep Resolve' potentially introduces artifacts? I believe you that it's better. I'm trying to figure out if it's either a) we developed a superior technology that is almost always better, but will very occasionally introduce noise that can be screened by a trained technician (or whatever) b) we developed a superior technology that is literally better in every way when compari…
As a rule, in MRI you have three things, pick 2. Resolution, signal and time to acquire.
The nature of the Deep Resolve training dataset means that matching the training input parameters makes images look good. Counterintuitively, accelerating the scan more sometimes improves images (better matching the training dataset). The differences are not subtle. This sort of breaks the res/signal/time things.
Yes, it can produce artefact on images that are low signal. It’s a grain type effect in the phase direction.
Every new acceleration technique has its artefacts and issues (fast spin echo, single shot, parallel imaging, simultaneous multi slice, etc). The beauty of Deep Resolve is that you can reconstruct the image again without DR applied and compare the result.
One minor proviso though, DR loves signal, so a scan that is to be run with DR needs more signal than a non deep resolve sequence. This is more than made up for by the resolution doubling after DR is applied.
Other accelerations have their own quirks to be handled (eg, parallel imaging needs a lot of over sampling, simultaneous multi slice needs a lot of extra elements turned on.
I’d say it’s your option b, but with the caveat that every single MR sequences (DR or not) needs someone to check the image is real and not showing stuff that isn’t there. Artefacts handled on a normal day will include machine faults, technician introduced artefact, patient issues (movement!), sequences issues, vendor specific problems and some weird as things that never get explained. These things keep me employed.
It looked like we were entering a Teslas arms race - more being better. The likes of DR are doing the opposite, with great images at lower field strength. Lower field strength magnets have better t1 contrast, are easier to make, are easier to install, they use less (or zero) helium, they are easier to maintain, they are safer, they are more readily available, they are lighter, they are cheaper etc etc.
Tech progress is slowing down because all of the entrenched players are protecting their cash cows rather than innovating. I also think that the ability of these companies to capture practically all talented tech employees with inflated salaries has harmed the industry and diminished creativity. The fracturing of these massive conglomerates hopefully brings a cambrian explosion of new tech.
Tech progress is slowing down because all of the entrenched players are protecting their cash cows rather than innovating. I also think that the ability of these companies to capture practically all talented tech employees with inflated salaries has harmed the industry and diminished creativity. The fracturing of these massive conglomerates hopefully brings a cambrian explosion of new tech.
Tech progress is slowing down because all of the entrenched players are protecting their cash cows rather than innovating. I also think that the ability of these companies to capture practically all talented tech employees with inflated salaries has harmed the industry and diminished creativity. The fracturing of these massive conglomerates hopefully brings a cambrian explosion of new tech.
So much this. It's time to go Ma Bell on Google et. al.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Airplanes are a relatively poor anecdote. They have advanced in small but steady changes over time. The prevalence of the single aisle, 6 abreast seating of the 737 and A320 came about because airlines could reliably fill short to medium haul flight and were cost effective in other ways. We have more efficient engines, systems have gotten safer, etc. There is a lot of work behind the scenes with aircraft.
Wright's brother's first flight happened in 1903. Within 15 years there were dogfights in WW1. In 31 years the first commercial service over the Atlantic started (cargo) and 5 years later (1939) the first commercial passenger transatlantic line was opened. Three decades later, the man got to the Moon. A few years later Concorde started regular supersonic commercial transatlantic flights. After that we got what? Less…
You also hear about every single one of them now, partly as they're rare and exciting to the media and partly because the Internet makes everything "nearby", whereas in the 90s you'd have probably only gotten a quick radio segment and a mid-paper article on a remote air crash.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fatalities_per_reven...
Tech progress is slowing down because all of the entrenched players are protecting their cash cows rather than innovating. I also think that the ability of these companies to capture practically all talented tech employees with inflated salaries has harmed the industry and diminished creativity. The fracturing of these massive conglomerates hopefully brings a cambrian explosion of new tech.
Did you read the article? Tech progress in the areas the article talked about slowed down like 70 years ago.
