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

"AI will cure cancer" misunderstands both AI and medicine

rachel.fast.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 207 posts

Re: "AI will cure cancer" misunderstands both AI and medicine

#191

Post by gfodor »

squigz wrote: post #190
gfodor wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can start by noticing the explicit capitalization of the adjective “Black” There are others but that is enough to bucket it in as someone who is dabbling in leftist memetics at a minimum

Truly my only response to your comments here is: wow.

Yes, you probably also have been led to think that these memes are just "being normal" but these are deliberate changes to the language which originated in academic programs of critical theory. See for example: https://cssp.org/2020/03/recognizing-race-in-language-why-we...

Re: "AI will cure cancer" misunderstands both AI and medicine

#192

Post by [deleted] »

frognumber wrote: post #184
supermatt wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really don’t understand what you are talking about. Cancer is not an infection. You can’t sequence it and treat it as you would a pathogen.

Cancer is a mutation. Much of the most promising recent work I've read on therapies focuses on: 1) Understanding the specific mutations 2) Helping the immune system find way to identify, and therefore attack, those specific cancer cells More of the work focuses on t-cells, but otherwise, it's not too dissimilar from the work on infections. I should know better than to discuss medicine on a SWE forum. Every post here…

[deleted]

Re: "AI will cure cancer" misunderstands both AI and medicine

#193

Post by rain_iwakura »

gfodor wrote: post #189
rain_iwakura wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the poster focuses on the term ("leftism") rather than on the substance is itself a red flag imo. It puts the discussion on a weird tripolar spectrum: you're either leftist, centrist, or rightwing (of which the poster is likely to posit themselves as a center, to avoid being called biased). I don't think it's terribly productive, and unless the article was calling for Bolshevik Revolution, I don't mind…

No, there is no fallacy here. You’re just ignorant. There are several signifying phrases and terms used here that are commonly used by people who have absorbed critical theory ideology.

sure man, woke mind virus has ravaged my brain lol.

Re: "AI will cure cancer" misunderstands both AI and medicine

#194

Post by haldujai »

carbocation wrote: post #183
haldujai wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inference on the validation set is xray -> pain score. It does not incorporate patient symptoms to make the prediction. In real life a surgeon incorporates the xray + patient symptoms/pain score.

Skipped a step: the model needs to be trained, which requires the patient symptoms as the target for weight updates. I think that you simply misread my original comment.

Perhaps I got lost but I am discussing your original statement of “using the patients' symptoms and objective data may actually outperform current medical standards” which relates to the model predictions/inference not training.

In this context we are talking about a pain predictor from an xray which is neat but not the point of KL grading.

KL is a system to grade severity of osteoarthritis on radiographs (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4925407/) and not a threshold for surgery or predictor of symptoms.

The comparator, current medical standards you reference, would be a model outperforming surgeon assessment in conjunction with radiographic findings. Not the predictive value of KL grade.

Re: "AI will cure cancer" misunderstands both AI and medicine

#195

Post by dartos »

ben_w wrote: post #116
e44858 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also known as hallucination

No, hallucinations are specifically when they make mistakes, even when they're more like interpolation than extrapolation. IIRC, it became a term of art during image classification AI development, where an AI might confidently assert a car was a potato, and the name stuck.

Idk maybe splitting hairs a bit, but I’d call any output that isn’t represented or which goes against data in a training set is a hallucination.

But there can be useful hallucinations.

Not sure about the origin of the word, but I always thought it was marketing when chatgpt and dalle was brand new

Re: "AI will cure cancer" misunderstands both AI and medicine

#196

Post by ummonk »

dartos wrote: post #195
ben_w wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, hallucinations are specifically when they make mistakes, even when they're more like interpolation than extrapolation. IIRC, it became a term of art during image classification AI development, where an AI might confidently assert a car was a potato, and the name stuck.

Idk maybe splitting hairs a bit, but I’d call any output that isn’t represented or which goes against data in a training set is a hallucination. But there can be useful hallucinations. Not sure about the origin of the word, but I always thought it was marketing when chatgpt and dalle was brand new

I'd only call something a hallucination if the AI claims the existence of data that doesn't actually exist.

Simply making an informed guess and extrapolating to data outside the training set (whether that informed guess is is correct or incorrect) is not hallucination.

Re: "AI will cure cancer" misunderstands both AI and medicine

#197

Post by squigz »

gfodor wrote: post #191
squigz wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Truly my only response to your comments here is: wow.

Yes, you probably also have been led to think that these memes are just "being normal" but these are deliberate changes to the language which originated in academic programs of critical theory. See for example: https://cssp.org/2020/03/recognizing-race-in-language-why-we...

Tell me more, please

Re: "AI will cure cancer" misunderstands both AI and medicine

#198

Post by gfodor »

rain_iwakura wrote: post #193
gfodor wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there is no fallacy here. You’re just ignorant. There are several signifying phrases and terms used here that are commonly used by people who have absorbed critical theory ideology.

sure man, woke mind virus has ravaged my brain lol.

Nothing wrong with being ignorant. Unless you’re claiming you’re not ignorant and just accept the memes as non-biased. In which yeah your brain would be pretty ravaged if that were the case (tho I’ve never liked Musk’s characterization personally)

Re: "AI will cure cancer" misunderstands both AI and medicine

#199

Post by [deleted] »

frognumber wrote: post #184
supermatt wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really don’t understand what you are talking about. Cancer is not an infection. You can’t sequence it and treat it as you would a pathogen.

Cancer is a mutation. Much of the most promising recent work I've read on therapies focuses on: 1) Understanding the specific mutations 2) Helping the immune system find way to identify, and therefore attack, those specific cancer cells More of the work focuses on t-cells, but otherwise, it's not too dissimilar from the work on infections. I should know better than to discuss medicine on a SWE forum. Every post here…

[deleted]

Re: "AI will cure cancer" misunderstands both AI and medicine

#200

Post by supermatt »

frognumber wrote: post #184
supermatt wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really don’t understand what you are talking about. Cancer is not an infection. You can’t sequence it and treat it as you would a pathogen.

Cancer is a mutation. Much of the most promising recent work I've read on therapies focuses on: 1) Understanding the specific mutations 2) Helping the immune system find way to identify, and therefore attack, those specific cancer cells More of the work focuses on t-cells, but otherwise, it's not too dissimilar from the work on infections. I should know better than to discuss medicine on a SWE forum. Every post here…

You may be done here, but you are still misunderstanding the medicine. You are making exactly the same errors as mentioned in the article - generalisation.

Cancer is not "a" mutation, and that is the whole problem.

You are talking about personalised neoantigen-specific t-cells as a generic cure for cancer, while ignoring the fact that not all generations of a cancer express neoantigens, or even the same neoantigens.

Ergo, it is a therapy, NOT a cure.

Post reply on HN