91–100 of 137 posts
Is there any meaningful benefit to knowing you have Parkinson's a few years earlier when there's no cure to it?
Tin foil hat: Insurance companies Realistic: Doesn't earlier "treatment" of Parkinson's Disease yield better outcomes? I.e. dopamine supplements, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sometimes companies do good stuff! Obviously. Otherwise they wouldn't get paid for very long.
That's not necessarily true. Major US corporations like DICK's are all aboard the woke train despite hemorrhaging customers massively from the second and third order consequences of banning scary things from their stores several years ago. To the tune of $250 million. And the CEO kept his job!
Not seeing much customer hemorrhaging in that graph.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what if you’re a false positive? What opportunities dis you forgo by choosing a path based on incorrect foreknowledge?
As someone who is somewhat older and had a medical scare, I am going to say I wish I had done everything always as if I am going to die in a year.
And yes I'm well aware this applies inductively to all of life, it's just somehow better if you don't know the value of N.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who is somewhat older and had a medical scare, I am going to say I wish I had done everything always as if I am going to die in a year.
I can't really think of any significant short-term interests I have, I think if I (relatively young) was told I was going to die in a year, or otherwise decided I should heed this advice and live that way, I'd spend the year in depression. Or at best just closing out investments, selling things, etc. to make it easier for family to deal with. I just can't imagine thinking Oh right now's the time for that (quick) 'exp…
I tried that and found it absolutely depressing and futile. Quick experiences never did anything for me or my family. But just doing what I like/want to do only (which not everyone can; some people seem to like/want things that cost a lot of money) is what I should've done for the past 40, not only the past 20 years is what I mean. Maybe dying next year is stressful for most, so make it 5 years; is that better? Or 7 as the article says?
> Using a type of AI known as ‘machine learning’, computers are now able to uncover hidden information about the whole body from these images alone. So now computers use AI to do something, interesting... I always liked how it's always "AI did X" or "AI discovered Y", but never a "crane built a building".
Odd statement, as it is of course always the thinker that gets the attribution, i.e. the manipulator of tools and the interpreter of results. E.g.1: Galileo saw Jupiter , not The telescope saw Jupiter . E.g.2: Joe built the wall , not The crane built the wall . In this case, AI is the thinker, not a human, hence the phrasing. A human creating the AI does not remove the attribution either, just as we never say Joe's m…
It is a tool.
I was reading this paper yesterday: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fchem.2023.1106... . Wouldn't it be good if we could scale those tools to human organisms and to individual patients? Use ML to compensate for the fact that our CPUs and GPUs can't really simulate something that big? What if we could see into the private lives of individual diseases with more resolution than the world's best spying agencies? [^1]
[^1] I dream I could work in something like that, send me an email if you are hiring.
This will get used against you to deny insurance coverage. Not to help anyone.
I recall two companies working on this - RightEye and Neuralight: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/17/righteyes-portable-eye-tra... https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/24/neuralight-aims-to-track-a... Probably there are more by now. As I recall this data is great for essentially saying "you should go get a real test." No one is diagnosing - just saying that a certain, say, eye movement slowness is correlated and you can det…
is early diagnosis useful?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Odd statement, as it is of course always the thinker that gets the attribution, i.e. the manipulator of tools and the interpreter of results. E.g.1: Galileo saw Jupiter , not The telescope saw Jupiter . E.g.2: Joe built the wall , not The crane built the wall . In this case, AI is the thinker, not a human, hence the phrasing. A human creating the AI does not remove the attribution either, just as we never say Joe's m…
AI does not think. It filters data to identify patterns (ML) or accomplish objectives (AI generally), or generates output based on prior patterns or rulesets under nondeterminism. It is a tool.