AI tools have been built to catch Covid, but none of them helped

Post by throwaway2048 » Sat, Jul 31, 2021, 1:51 AM UTC

briefcomment wrote: post #6

vitorsr wrote: post #2

> “The models are so similar—they almost all use the same techniques with minor tweaks, the same inputs—and they all make the same mistakes,” says Wynants. “If all these people making new models instead tested models that were already available, maybe we’d have something that could really help in the clinic by now.” Sounds about right.

I'm curious what people find is more likely given this evidence: - 100s of models were done incorrectly, and none even remotely correctly - there is no phenomenon to correctly model Both seem extremely unlikely. Not sure what the alternatives are.

Post by briefcomment » Sat, Jul 31, 2021, 1:55 AM UTC

throwaway2048 wrote: post #11

briefcomment wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what people find is more likely given this evidence: - 100s of models were done incorrectly, and none even remotely correctly - there is no phenomenon to correctly model Both seem extremely unlikely. Not sure what the alternatives are.

100s of models that all make the same wrong assumptions are going to be equally worthless. You can make all the models about phlogiston you want, none of them are going to accurately explain fire.

Post by gunshai » Sat, Jul 31, 2021, 1:59 AM UTC

Post by tablespoon » Sat, Jul 31, 2021, 2:07 AM UTC

briefcomment wrote: post #12

tablespoon wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a false choice. There's also: - Technology not suitable or adequate for this use case. I mean, we've been to the "AI over-promises and under-delivers" rodeo before.

You think a 100% failure rate on the hottest topic in the world right now is likely?

Post by ht43q3 » Sat, Jul 31, 2021, 2:22 AM UTC