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

I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner

#31

Post by colingauvin »

jmward01 wrote: post #23

I'm not a doctor but (Isn't there always a but after someone saying they aren't a doctor?) it seems to me we need three things to bring in a true revolution: - imaging that can get down to the cellular level easily and often. - the ability to process that imaging data to find issues effectively. - the ability to act on that data in a minimally invasive way. This is a step in the right direction for one and two and th…

The problem is there's an inverse relationship between penetration of the sound waves and the frequency.

Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner

#32

Post by Legend2440 »

democracy wrote: post #29

Midjourney seems useless these days, not even sure why would anyone use.

MidJourney has better style than most other image generators, especially for artistic images.

Unfortunately it hasn't kept up on image quality, detail, or text rendering. I think this is because they don't have the $ to keep up in the scaling game.

Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner

#33

Post by physPop »

manwithopinions wrote: post #19
fragmede wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which of those is groundbreaking? The Butterly handheld ultrasound is old technology in a new form factor with a bunch of trade offs. Useful in some situations, sure, but “groundbreaking”? Same with the Swoop portable MRI: existing technology, different form factor, big trade offs. You’ve pretty much demonstrated the criticism is true, that all these grandiose claims made by VC backed medical device companies are… bu…

butterfly and the swoop are both essentially useless too compared to their reference devices

Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner

#34

Post by physPop »

colingauvin wrote: post #31
jmward01 wrote: post #23

I'm not a doctor but (Isn't there always a but after someone saying they aren't a doctor?) it seems to me we need three things to bring in a true revolution: - imaging that can get down to the cellular level easily and often. - the ability to process that imaging data to find issues effectively. - the ability to act on that data in a minimally invasive way. This is a step in the right direction for one and two and th…

The problem is there's an inverse relationship between penetration of the sound waves and the frequency.

and the heating

Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner

#35

Post by colingauvin »

physPop wrote: post #34
colingauvin wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is there's an inverse relationship between penetration of the sound waves and the frequency.

and the heating

Yeah there's a point where I'd rather have the radiation than ultrasound.

Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner

#36

Post by notatoad »

madrox wrote: post #28

I wonder how much of the knee-jerk cynicism comes down to it being Midjourney doing this in a way where it feels like "practicing medicine without a license." The irony is I believe that if a medical devices company announced this, it was being sold to hospitals, and it would only cost the patient's insurance $100 a scan, then the medical industry would universally praise this as a breakthrough. It is very easy to be…

>The irony is I believe that if a medical devices company announced this, it was being sold to hospitals, and it would only cost the patient's insurance $100 a scan, then the medical industry would universally praise this as a breakthrough.

yes, that's the power of reputation. if a company with a proven track record of selling effective diagnostic tools decided to stake their reputation on a new system that sounds a bit like something from an ai-generated fairy tale, people might be more likely to give it the benefit of the doubt.

when a company best known for selling actual ai-generated fairytales announces a medical diagnostic tool that sounds like an ai-generated fairytale, i think it's reasonable to treat that with some skepticism.

Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner

#37

Post by [deleted] »

madrox wrote: post #28

I wonder how much of the knee-jerk cynicism comes down to it being Midjourney doing this in a way where it feels like "practicing medicine without a license." The irony is I believe that if a medical devices company announced this, it was being sold to hospitals, and it would only cost the patient's insurance $100 a scan, then the medical industry would universally praise this as a breakthrough. It is very easy to be…

[deleted]

Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner

#38

Post by nl »

noobermin wrote: post #20

Given the incentives (an ai booster account who is also prompting chat to write his posts) does this even belong on HN? I feel like our standards have dropped so much in the last two years.

If you don't like the post, say something about the post itself. At the moment your criticism sounds like "I don't like this world we live in"

Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner

#40

Post by [deleted] »

notatoad wrote: post #36
madrox wrote: post #28

I wonder how much of the knee-jerk cynicism comes down to it being Midjourney doing this in a way where it feels like "practicing medicine without a license." The irony is I believe that if a medical devices company announced this, it was being sold to hospitals, and it would only cost the patient's insurance $100 a scan, then the medical industry would universally praise this as a breakthrough. It is very easy to be…

>The irony is I believe that if a medical devices company announced this, it was being sold to hospitals, and it would only cost the patient's insurance $100 a scan, then the medical industry would universally praise this as a breakthrough. yes, that's the power of reputation. if a company with a proven track record of selling effective diagnostic tools decided to stake their reputation on a new system that sounds a…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN