Live data from Hacker News

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

science.org

141–150 of 159 posts

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#141
post #90
post #36

Earlier 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…

Some of us want a record of what was, not a hallucination of what might have or could have been. Courts, for example. Forensic science was revolutionized by widespread adoption of photography leading to a reduction of the importance given to witnesses. Who also hallucinate what might have happened.

> Some of us want a record of what was, not a hallucination of what might have or could have been

Yes, but that doesn’t imply “A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees”, only “cameras sometimes are supposed to take pictures of what they see”.

Some of us prefer a nice picture over a more exact record of what was; some of us will even argue that such manipulated pictures are better at capturing what was precisely because they sacrifice some of the physical reality for the non-physical essence of a moments one’s memory of such a moment.

That moon photo is a nice example. Smartphone cameras aren’t very good at capturing what the full moon looks like in our memory.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#142
post #46

Earlier 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.

Where do you draw the line? RAW, HDR, photo stitching, blur removal?

I draw the line at adding something that was not there

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#143

As a practicing radiologist, I think this is great. We can have AI enabled MRI scanners hallucinating images, read by AI interpreting systems hallucinating reports!

And then we have systems hallucinating patients, data, and entire medical publications! The future is here.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#144
post #24

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…

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.

You wouldn't like the picture of what it sees. The lens is just not big enough. Even the pro raw and other features that phone introduced apply processing.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#145
post #115
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think this machine is being billed as replacement to high-field machines. Countries where health regulation is less developed are likely to see misrepresentation where this form of MRI will be equated to full-field MRI by snake oil salesmen.

The US government bought divining rods to detect IED's in Iraq. Dumb stuff happens, but we achieve so much in spite of it.

You mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 If you did, the US government didn't buy those, but Iraq did.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when I took an 8 second exposure of the aurora on Friday and then used Capture One to process the raw to make it more vivid than it was in real life - is that a record of what was? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not super keen on AI type stuff in cameras as a whole. The line is muddy though. A smartphone camera straight up can’t capture the moon well, or at all. If it then looks more like it did in real life after proces…

How often do you capture auroras or other beauty shots, vs. readouts on your electricity meter, stickers on the back of your furnace, receipts, and a hundred other displays and documents you need to send someone? I definitely do plenty of the latter, and in such cases, I'd really appreciate the AI to not spice things up with details it thinks should be there. I'm by no means against the feature. Hell, I shoot 90% of…

When I'm taking a picture of a receipt or sticker behind a machine, I don't actually want a literal photograph of the entire scene but just a reproduction of the text content.

Any environmental lighting, color and texture of the desk, and all other visual detail are only a distraction.

So if the camera would recognize this intent and just give me the receipt looking like it came from a scanner, that would in fact be a great improvement. So I think your example is in fact a point in favor of having AI meddle with most photos that people shoot.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#148
post #120

That Science let this through peer review and editor filtering is pretty damning. This wouldn't pass 5 minutes of review here on Hacker News.

That's because people on Hacker News don't know shit. Everyone here who has a superficial understanding of deep learning and believes they know what an MRI is comes up with extremely strong opinions, but it is very obvious that noone here has even read the full article beyond the abstract (or even the title). There are legitimate questions and concerns you can raise about this article, but not a single one of them is…

I mean, we can wait and see for reproduction/retraction. I would bet no reproduction possible or outright retraction.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#149
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because people on Hacker News don't know shit. Everyone here who has a superficial understanding of deep learning and believes they know what an MRI is comes up with extremely strong opinions, but it is very obvious that noone here has even read the full article beyond the abstract (or even the title). There are legitimate questions and concerns you can raise about this article, but not a single one of them is…

I mean, we can wait and see for reproduction/retraction. I would bet no reproduction possible or outright retraction.

This paper is actually the culmination of a series of developments in the field over the past decade. Anyone who was following the subject was not surprised by it. Yours and all the other comments here are nothing but a testimony to the presumptuousness of HN. It's also funny how posts about modern physics usually just yield admissions that people know nothing of the subject, but when the topic is AI or medicine, everyone is suddenly a research scientist.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#150
post #29

Earlier 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.

As long as AI makes things better on average, it's useful. It doesn't have to be 100% correct.

There are applications - such as finding out whether you have a tumor or not - when "improving on average while ignoring outliers" is not acceptable.
Post reply on HN