I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
1–10 of 61 posts
Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#22 things:
1. We should absolutely pursuing these kind of ideas but given then nature of technological progress and our history with “democratization” things are likely to get worse before we get better. Matt is hedging a lot here reflecting this.
2. Maybe all this stuff is as promising as the various threads suggest but it’s bizzare that this is all being argued in culture war terms (you vs the gatekeepers) and not like shared human flourishing terms. Again maybe it’s working, but it’s also being marketed to a certain kind of persons fears, not as the future of human understanding.
Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#3There’s one thing that I find interesting about this. I can’t judge whether this is a good product, whether it’ll work, and what it’ll add to the medical establishment, or whether more data is always more useful.
In general, I think we should applaud this though.
Any genuine attempt to create novel medical technologies is probably a good thing (assuming they’re non-invasive and non-painful).
Unless it’s a Theranos situation, I think it’s a great thing to attempt, even if it fails. So many things we rely on today are the result of a successful attempt, but the failures were just as necessary for the eventual success.
That ambition is very positive to me.
Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#4[deleted]
Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#5[dead]
Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#6There’s one thing that I find interesting about this. I can’t judge whether this is a good product, whether it’ll work, and what it’ll add to the medical establishment, or whether more data is always more useful. In general, I think we should applaud this though. Any genuine attempt to create novel medical technologies is probably a good thing (assuming they’re non-invasive and non-painful). Unless it’s a Theranos si…
It's a Theranos situation.
>>That ambition is very positive to me.
...and this is why people fall for it. Every. Single. Time.
Literally everything they're saying is marketingslop gobbledegook. No studies, no papers, no doctors; just "500k transducers," and "30fps!" Anyone can wire that up. With a little cash, you might even be able to stream, record, and proccess it. Still means absolute diddly squat if you haven't compared it to other imaging or figured out how to train a radiologist to use it effectively or done trials for specific diagnostics or diseases.
They'll figure out if it does anything other than show you an animated cartoon xray of yourself later. After they have your money.
Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#7There’s one thing that I find interesting about this. I can’t judge whether this is a good product, whether it’ll work, and what it’ll add to the medical establishment, or whether more data is always more useful. In general, I think we should applaud this though. Any genuine attempt to create novel medical technologies is probably a good thing (assuming they’re non-invasive and non-painful). Unless it’s a Theranos si…
I read somewhere that this isn't exactly new/novel tech, that this has been around for forever its just that the medical industry never adopted it becuae of whatever bureaucratic reasoning usually inhibits medical solutions
Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#8There’s one thing that I find interesting about this. I can’t judge whether this is a good product, whether it’ll work, and what it’ll add to the medical establishment, or whether more data is always more useful. In general, I think we should applaud this though. Any genuine attempt to create novel medical technologies is probably a good thing (assuming they’re non-invasive and non-painful). Unless it’s a Theranos si…
I read somewhere that this isn't exactly new/novel tech, that this has been around for forever its just that the medical industry never adopted it becuae of whatever bureaucratic reasoning usually inhibits medical solutions
Or maybe, because it's not really useful for much.
Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#9There’s one thing that I find interesting about this. I can’t judge whether this is a good product, whether it’ll work, and what it’ll add to the medical establishment, or whether more data is always more useful. In general, I think we should applaud this though. Any genuine attempt to create novel medical technologies is probably a good thing (assuming they’re non-invasive and non-painful). Unless it’s a Theranos si…
It's a Theranos situation. >>That ambition is very positive to me. ...and this is why people fall for it. Every. Single. Time. Literally everything they're saying is marketingslop gobbledegook. No studies, no papers, no doctors; just "500k transducers," and "30fps!" Anyone can wire that up. With a little cash, you might even be able to stream, record, and proccess it. Still means absolute diddly squat if you haven't…
Name some other groundbreaking medical equipment that was brought about by VC funding, please.
Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a Theranos situation. >>That ambition is very positive to me. ...and this is why people fall for it. Every. Single. Time. Literally everything they're saying is marketingslop gobbledegook. No studies, no papers, no doctors; just "500k transducers," and "30fps!" Anyone can wire that up. With a little cash, you might even be able to stream, record, and proccess it. Still means absolute diddly squat if you haven't…
Name some other groundbreaking medical equipment that was brought about by VC funding, please.
da Vinci Surgical System, Zio Patch cardiac monitor, Butterfly iQ handheld ultrasound, Swoop portable MRI, Shockwave Intravascular Lithotripsy, CardioMEMS HF System, Tablo Hemodialysis System, MONARCH robotic bronchoscopy platform, Mako robotic-arm orthopedic surgery system.