A few months ago there were articles going around about how Samsung galaxy phones were upscaling images of the Moon using AI [0]. Essentially, the model was artificially adding landmarks and details based on its training set when the real image quality was too poor to make out details. Needless to say, AI upscaling as described in this article would be a nightmare for radiologists. 90% of radiology is confirming the…
Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla
101–110 of 159 posts
Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees.” Feels like that’s just a matter of expectations. A phone used to be a device for voice communications. It’s right there in the Greek etymology, “phonē” for sound. But 95% of what people do today on devices called phones is something else than voice. Similarly, if people start using cameras more to produce images of things they want rather than what exists in…
small correction “phonē” means voice not sound :)
They would say "ὀργάνων φωναί", "φωνὴ βροντῆς", "φωνὴ ὑδάτων" and so on for example.
Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla
#103A few months ago there were articles going around about how Samsung galaxy phones were upscaling images of the Moon using AI [0]. Essentially, the model was artificially adding landmarks and details based on its training set when the real image quality was too poor to make out details. Needless to say, AI upscaling as described in this article would be a nightmare for radiologists. 90% of radiology is confirming the…
The Samsung phone wasn’t a technological advancement, it was sheer fraud. A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees. Imagine going to a restaurant, ordering French onion soup, and getting a bowl of brown food coloring in water.
Isn't that like 80% of the mass food industry and 99% of the fast food industry.
Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla
#104A few months ago there were articles going around about how Samsung galaxy phones were upscaling images of the Moon using AI [0]. Essentially, the model was artificially adding landmarks and details based on its training set when the real image quality was too poor to make out details. Needless to say, AI upscaling as described in this article would be a nightmare for radiologists. 90% of radiology is confirming the…
The Samsung phone wasn’t a technological advancement, it was sheer fraud. A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees. Imagine going to a restaurant, ordering French onion soup, and getting a bowl of brown food coloring in water.
Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla
#105A few months ago there were articles going around about how Samsung galaxy phones were upscaling images of the Moon using AI [0]. Essentially, the model was artificially adding landmarks and details based on its training set when the real image quality was too poor to make out details. Needless to say, AI upscaling as described in this article would be a nightmare for radiologists. 90% of radiology is confirming the…
This is one aspect about machine learning models I keep discussing with non-technical passengers of the AI-hype-train: They are (in their current form) unsitable for applications where correctness is absolutely critical.
Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla
#106A few months ago there were articles going around about how Samsung galaxy phones were upscaling images of the Moon using AI [0]. Essentially, the model was artificially adding landmarks and details based on its training set when the real image quality was too poor to make out details. Needless to say, AI upscaling as described in this article would be a nightmare for radiologists. 90% of radiology is confirming the…
They've already made this mistake. There was one model that detected skin cancer because there was always a ruler in the images.
Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one aspect about machine learning models I keep discussing with non-technical passengers of the AI-hype-train: They are (in their current form) unsitable for applications where correctness is absolutely critical.
This is not true, but it is a major challenge. See https://www.pathai.com/
Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one aspect about machine learning models I keep discussing with non-technical passengers of the AI-hype-train: They are (in their current form) unsitable for applications where correctness is absolutely critical.
I don’t know enough to make absolute statements here, but deep learning models can beat out human experts at discerning between signal and noise. Using that to guess at data and then hand it off to humans gives you the worst of both worlds. Two error probabilities multiplied together. But to simply render a verdict on whether a condition exists I’d trust a proven algorithm.
The goal would be to find a way to make ML extrapolate only pixels that really describe actual really present features and never imagining detail that wasn't there in the first place. Now I am no expert at the matter, but what I know of deep learning models they are really good at the latter as they basically make statistic guesses on what would be plausible.
Getting a plausible guess on what looks like a convincing answer works really well for answering a question. But the problem at hand is more like predicting the words someone said based on the first and last word in a sentence. Imagine a criminal case where the evidence is fragmented like that: I am pretty sure a LLM could give a convincing prediction here, but I am not sure how much you could rely on that prediction being reflective of what was actually said. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable with a conviction the result of that prediction even if it was reflective of the ground truth in 90% of times.
Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Samsung phone wasn’t a technological advancement, it was sheer fraud. A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees. Imagine going to a restaurant, ordering French onion soup, and getting a bowl of brown food coloring in water.
> A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees. If people wanted cameras to actually take what it sees, then we wouldn't have autofocus, photoshop or instagram filters. The goal of a cell phone camera is to capture what you are experiencing, not to literally record what light strikes the cmos chip.
Do you think its recording some other light?
Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla
#110A few months ago there were articles going around about how Samsung galaxy phones were upscaling images of the Moon using AI [0]. Essentially, the model was artificially adding landmarks and details based on its training set when the real image quality was too poor to make out details. Needless to say, AI upscaling as described in this article would be a nightmare for radiologists. 90% of radiology is confirming the…
The Samsung phone wasn’t a technological advancement, it was sheer fraud. A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees. Imagine going to a restaurant, ordering French onion soup, and getting a bowl of brown food coloring in water.