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

Midjourney Medical

midjourney.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 927 posts

Re: Midjourney Medical

#371

Post by keiferski »

raindropm wrote: post #365
keiferski wrote: post #348

I have a mixed response: 1. It kind of makes sense that an AI imagery company would apply that to other novel applications of imagery and computing and try to do something cool with it. 2. Midjourney as a brand is all over the place and this feels - off , somehow. I think from a branding pov they should have just started a different company with a different name. Perhaps a single image-focused umbrella company named…

The pivot to do things they want as AI research lab is perfectly understandable, but also..weird, like their loyal userbase are mostly creative people, and this pivot have ZERO things to do with those audience at all. It also gives a vibe that they gives zero damn about to those creatives audience, or the things that made name for them in the past anymore, or that what I feel as their subscriber... I know that David…

Yeah, exactly. This would have been a cool side project company from the founder and team.

Doing it under their main brand is very weird and I don’t quite see how it translates to creatives at all.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#373

Post by Paracompact »

vasco wrote: post #341
david_shi wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this argument before and it's always seemed downstream of capacity constraints and the current incentives of the healthcare industry. There's a reason why billionaires like David Rockefeller, Larry Ellison, and Rupert Murdoch are able to live much longer lives than average, and having an oncall health team (that I'm sure does frequent testing and monitoring) is a big contributor to that. More testing and d…

It's obviously a lie to get us to accept no tests due to limited machines. The same as when COVID started masks "didn't help" because they didn't yet secure enough supply for everyone, then when they did, suddenly the masks helped. Every system that exists as a black box is more understandable with more sensing, not less. Our bodies are not special. It's also ridiculous that the proposition goes like: 1. Doctor knows…

It's not the same doctors saying they themselves are simultaneously smart and stupid. It's "smart" doctors saying that as a point of policy, it is not a good idea for biomedical companies to try to make a buck off of popularizing unnecessary diagnostics, because anxious patients will by chance or by intention find a "dumb" doctor who will agree to perform invasive procedures. (Have you ever heard a tech person say that the tech world has a lot of stupid ideas? It's the same thing.) Look up what happened with South Korea diagnosis vs. mortality rates when they instituted national thyroid screenings in the 90s.

> Every system that exists as a black box is more understandable with more sensing, not less.

With perfect humans in a perfect society, maybe. But such is ignoring the elephants in the room here, from the actual experts on the topic.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#374

Post by bigfudge »

vasco wrote: post #341
david_shi wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this argument before and it's always seemed downstream of capacity constraints and the current incentives of the healthcare industry. There's a reason why billionaires like David Rockefeller, Larry Ellison, and Rupert Murdoch are able to live much longer lives than average, and having an oncall health team (that I'm sure does frequent testing and monitoring) is a big contributor to that. More testing and d…

It's obviously a lie to get us to accept no tests due to limited machines. The same as when COVID started masks "didn't help" because they didn't yet secure enough supply for everyone, then when they did, suddenly the masks helped. Every system that exists as a black box is more understandable with more sensing, not less. Our bodies are not special. It's also ridiculous that the proposition goes like: 1. Doctor knows…

This kind of thinking (that it’s an obvious lie, perpetrated by a cabal) is the sort of superstitious bullshit that is going to jet us all killed. Look up Bayes theorem. As yourself how good a test would have to be if the base rate is low. Wonder what the probability of harm might be if the next advised test was invasive and the patients was anxious because a lump had been detected.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#375

Post by vasco »

bigfudge wrote: post #374
vasco wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's obviously a lie to get us to accept no tests due to limited machines. The same as when COVID started masks "didn't help" because they didn't yet secure enough supply for everyone, then when they did, suddenly the masks helped. Every system that exists as a black box is more understandable with more sensing, not less. Our bodies are not special. It's also ridiculous that the proposition goes like: 1. Doctor knows…

This kind of thinking (that it’s an obvious lie, perpetrated by a cabal) is the sort of superstitious bullshit that is going to jet us all killed. Look up Bayes theorem. As yourself how good a test would have to be if the base rate is low. Wonder what the probability of harm might be if the next advised test was invasive and the patients was anxious because a lump had been detected.

You should read til the end! No cabal, just stupidity and believing other people are stupid instead of telling them the truth and expecting them to act smart based on the information.

Ask yourself, do you think billionnaires have yearly MRIs or that they wait for later because the doctor and themselves will be anxious? It's an argument that treats regular people as stupid.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#377

Post by pleurotus »

Jabrov wrote: post #133

They've lost the plot, especially with the spa. And a billion scans a month is absurd. Is this some AI hallucination post?

I've been sitting here trying to do sleepy morning train commute maths. 1billion scans per month, 50,000 scanners worldwide (!). 1 minute scan time. Lowers platform at 5cm/cm. FTA. Globally, apparently in 2023 there were 250,000 spas worldwide. [0]

Their numbers would suggest these 1 billion people, getting scanned by 50k scanners, have each scanner doing 20k scans a month. 31 days, 24 hours, we have 744 hours in which to do these. That's 20k scans/744 hours, giving you 26.8 scans/hour. One scan'll be 2.2min. 2 minutes 14 seconds.

If this machine is 200cm big, lowers at 5cm a sec, that gives you 40seconds to lower. One minute to scan. 40 seconds to get you back up, presumably. Even if we're generous and double that, you're at 2 minutes just to lower, scan, and yeet you back up.

Giving you 14 seconds between scans. To clean, maintain, etc. Seems like this machine will output investor AI hype, bacteria, and false positives.

I linked the spa statistics because there's the question of how they'll even get the room for these machines but whatever.

0-https://gitnux.org/spa-industry-statistics/

Re: Midjourney Medical

#379

Post by otaviogood »

FWIW, I tried the prototype. It's very real. I scanned my hand and arm. It showed realtime images of slices of my hand as I dipped my hand in the water. Really amazing IMO. I think this will be a game changer when it comes out. It's just so easy to scan yourself.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#380

Post by stymaar »

sroussey wrote: post #305
convnet wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a controversial and complicated idea. The downside, and the reason why most doctors do not recommend full body scans, is that every human body is a bit weird and there will almost always be something "wrong" that will be visible in a full body scan. This can lead to unnecessary testing, anxiety, and even unnecessary procedures. Many of these oddities flagged by the scan would never have caused any actual issues…

If the whole population had a full body scan every quarter, the “weird” things would feel more like the noise they are. But we would have great data over time, both individually (weird tends to only matter if they are changing) and as a population.

Maybe it would end up fine “in the long run” but you cannot ignore the significant issues arising at the beginning (and at each release of a more performant tool): what do you do if you find something that “shouldn't be there".
Post reply on HN