131–134 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Averages are not adequate descriptions of situations with bizarre outliers. An ML model that creates nonexistent detail in a medical image screams bizarre outliers.
Medical conditions are usually binary choices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have talked at length with several people in the FastMRI project and in my opinion it is actually very dangerous. There is no feasible way to validate that such a model will not hallucinate normal tissue in the presence of a rare abnormality. The argument often used is that advanced reconstruction techniques such as compressed sensing have not required validating against very rare abnormalities, however when deep n…
I never understood these arguments. Isn't it like claiming self-driving cars via neural networks would never be possible because you can't test that the neural network would take the correct decision in every situation? I view the whole issue stochastically, with the immediate aim being to make (significantly) fewer errors than the current approach, which is having a human decide. I don't claim that I can design an e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Maybe, but that should be a tradeoff that is made consciously with some analysis and care, instead of just jumping over a low FDA bar, which is what everyone in this space seems to be doing. I think there are enough abnormalities that can be fatal which a net would just fill in (e.g. aortic dissection?) 2. There are thousands of different abnormalities. From what I understand about the FDA validation process for t…
> And once again, this would be a question that should be studied carefully when people's lives are at risk I agree 100% with this, but how can this question be studied of this research to develop these systems doesn't go forward? You earlier characterized the FastMRI research as, in your view, "actually very dangerous." As I see it, the research here is potentially extremely valuable, and the danger comes not from t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I do agree with some concerns about quality journalism, and I want it to survive, I find the specific argument you used to be disingenuous. We're dealing with perfectly and infinitely reproducible 'product'. Any scarcity here is artificially imposed. It's not like with groceries, where we have finite amount of goods, that can only be consumed once. I know, that reality of dealing with non-scarce goods doesn't g…
Splendid. Impressive. Who pays? It’s a very simple question I’m asking you.