Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 101 posts

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#61

Post by guy98238710 »

zarzavat wrote: post #15
versteegen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Medical practice is very knowledge intensive, especially general practice. Very prone to human error, have you seen the stats on accidental deaths in hospitals? Excellent high-value use for (future) learning systems which can ingest and apply a large body of knowledge and reason in the face of a huge poorly understood graph of causal factors. No, the last people to be replaced will be those doing unpaid labour,…

It is technically possible today for patients in hospital to have their food delivered by robot, yet most people would have a strong aversion to that idea: the presence of other humans helps us to have the will to get better. I choose my GP based on my ability to trust and empathize with him, not because of his grades in medical school. Medicine is an intrinsically human activity. It may be augmented and improved by…

> It is technically possible today for patients in hospital to have their food delivered by robot, yet most people would have a strong aversion to that idea

That's a matter of personal preference. I prefer self-service checkout in the grocery store even if there's an unused staffed checkout. Generally, I prefer robots and AIs wherever they are available.

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#62

Post by Jibbedeyeah »

amrocha wrote: post #45
genocidicbunny wrote: post #23

[flagged]

The Google hate crowd is so strange to me. I just don't understand it when Google are probably the best data stewards in the current landscape. I trust Google more than I trust my own government with my data. I guess their support is bad, is that why you're so against them?

[dead]

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#63

Post by moneywoes »

synaesthesisx wrote: post #18
versteegen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression of what's holding back improvements to CV and ML for medical images is that close to none of the research in the field will ever be put into practice. There's a huge amount of research done and then the companies actually producing the software used by technicians and doctors choose a tiny number of things to pick up, incorporate, test, get certified, and it takes years. People working in the field have…

A couple of years ago I had built a product for health systems in the computer vision space - and ran into the challenge of trying to commercialize it (with no luck). Even if the product/technology is excellent, the regulatory hurdles & red tape make it insanely difficult to get this sort of stuff commercialized in a healthcare context.

What were your gtm learnings

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#64

Post by Xcelerate »

beefield wrote: post #50

Having spent some time with a hallucinating ChatGPT and having spent some time with doctors during my life, at this point, in my humble opinion, it should be made illegal for a doctor to make a diagnosis without consulting an LLM finetuned with all the medical research and literature available. Ah, but copyright/patents/IP. Well, IP was created to foster production of useful immaterial stuff. If you now want to use i…

A bit blunt way to word it (and you’re going to get a lot of pushback), but overall I agree with the sentiment. The medical field, due to various regulations and special interests, is quite likely the field of study where humanity is most behind where it could be based on the technology we currently have.

I’m a data scientist, and it stuns me the way in which diagnoses are made compared to how they could be made if we had a large worldwide dataset of symptoms and other observations to draw correlations from. Especially with regard to preventative medicine.

Not only that, but there are a lot of bad doctors out there. If you go to four different doctors for an even slightly obscure problem, there’s a good chance you will get four different diagnoses. If we applied rigorous statistical tests to the assessments made in the medical industry, I think everyone would be unsettled at how inconsistent and irreproducible everything is (as applied to the medical practice—not necessarily academic medical research).

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#65

Post by moonchrome »

beefield wrote: post #50

Having spent some time with a hallucinating ChatGPT and having spent some time with doctors during my life, at this point, in my humble opinion, it should be made illegal for a doctor to make a diagnosis without consulting an LLM finetuned with all the medical research and literature available. Ah, but copyright/patents/IP. Well, IP was created to foster production of useful immaterial stuff. If you now want to use i…

For someone who's "been around doctors" and "used ChatGPT", your opinion is anything but humble.

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#66

Post by goralph »

amrocha wrote: post #45
genocidicbunny wrote: post #23

[flagged]

The Google hate crowd is so strange to me. I just don't understand it when Google are probably the best data stewards in the current landscape. I trust Google more than I trust my own government with my data. I guess their support is bad, is that why you're so against them?

Better stewards than Apple?

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#67

Post by civilized »

isaacfung wrote: post #60
civilized wrote: post #48

Model performance doesn't seem to be monotonically increasing with size. The 84B parameter model is the best on most tasks. What happened to "you just train it on more data and performance goes up exponentially"? There were so many charts proving this and we could even project at what level of data/compute world-conquering superintelligence would inevitably emerge.

There is text under the table.

They didn't try particularly hard to find out why the biggest model didn't perform as well. Or at all, as far as they report. They give us one sentence speculating "maybe not enough training".

Come on. This is Google. They have unlimited compute resource, biomedical AI is a core strategic objective, they've spent untold $$$ getting data and working on this for years. There are news articles on their efforts going back a decade. And all they could do is wave their hands at "maybe not enough training".

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#68

Post by StackOverlord »

espadrine wrote: post #19

It is still not quite at a human level (radiologists prefer human reports in 60% of cases in blinded trials on the best of 3 models, corresponding to an ELO difference of 67 points; the worst model has an ELO difference of 130 compared to humans). The evaluation was done on 246 X-rays, which is good; it would be better if they were not all chest X-rays (to see generality), and if there were more than only four radiol…

I talked to a radiologist about it. The big deal for him was more about voice to text translation (whisper) and being able to rework the report using gpt.

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#69

Post by r17n »

beefield wrote: post #50

Having spent some time with a hallucinating ChatGPT and having spent some time with doctors during my life, at this point, in my humble opinion, it should be made illegal for a doctor to make a diagnosis without consulting an LLM finetuned with all the medical research and literature available. Ah, but copyright/patents/IP. Well, IP was created to foster production of useful immaterial stuff. If you now want to use i…

I feel “require” is a bit strong. But, I think there are some interesting possibilities.

Advertising your medical practice as an “LLM-consulting” (better name needed) one in the same way there’s “Montessori” schools could be interesting.

Another option I think that would be interesting would be making the LLM patient-facing and required as one of the check-in “docs”. And then attach the results to the patient’s file for the medical professional to view.

Could also be great for pre-screening and/or suggesting a virtual visit if appropriate.

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#70

Post by balfirevic »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #13
ChatGTP wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you're trolling, but don't worry AI would have the answer to this solution too!! Don't you get it?

I am not trolling. I genuinely believe that AI will bring more harm than good to humanity and I am trying to point out the specific ways it will be whenever new AI developments come about. Surely to every new development there are also cons or negatives as well as positives?

> AI will bring more harm than good to humanity and I am trying to point out the specific ways it will be whenever new AI developments come about

And what you managed to come up with is... people will live longer! That's just hilarious :-D

Post reply on HN