21–30 of 65 posts
The magazine I worked for at the time was about to publish an article claiming that DeepMind had failed to comply with data protection regulations when accessing records from some 1.6 million patients to set up those collaborations—a claim later backed up by a government investigation. Suleyman couldn’t see why we would publish a story that was hostile to his company’s efforts to improve health care. As long as he co…
The magazine I worked for at the time was about to publish an article claiming that DeepMind had failed to comply with data protection regulations when accessing records from some 1.6 million patients to set up those collaborations—a claim later backed up by a government investigation. Suleyman couldn’t see why we would publish a story that was hostile to his company’s efforts to improve health care. As long as he co…
There is a real argument on the other side, though. We're dealing with technologies that they've when given access to loads of data. Health data is heavily regulated, and rightly so, but that regulation greatly hinders innovation. Hell medical data access problems are bad enough even when we aren't talking about innovation: simple problems in sharing data between different systems/providers leads to bad outcomes all…
Just add a irrevocable guarantee that they will never sell or transfer to someone who will sell any data and if they do the company will immediately dissolve and become encumbered with a debt of the highest seniority equal to all lifetime company revenues to the people whose medical data they have. The C-suite and Board of Directors must also provide a personal financial guarantee equal to their entire compensation package, and must provide sworn testimony yearly that they are engaging in no business deals which include the sale of private medical data.
Since they do not intend to ever use the data for bad purposes, they have nothing to lose by keeping their word. Literally no downside to them since they were not going to do it anyways and it provides peace of mind to the public, a win-win.
> In a recent conversation I had with him, he told me that generative AI is just a phase. What’s next is interactive AI: bots that can carry out tasks you set for them by calling on other software and other people to get stuff done. Is this somehow an old article? Has the DeepMind cofounder somehow been unaware of ChatGPT, which has already been doing this for months, and which is what exploded the whole notion of AI…
The magazine I worked for at the time was about to publish an article claiming that DeepMind had failed to comply with data protection regulations when accessing records from some 1.6 million patients to set up those collaborations—a claim later backed up by a government investigation. Suleyman couldn’t see why we would publish a story that was hostile to his company’s efforts to improve health care. As long as he co…
There is a real argument on the other side, though. We're dealing with technologies that they've when given access to loads of data. Health data is heavily regulated, and rightly so, but that regulation greatly hinders innovation. Hell medical data access problems are bad enough even when we aren't talking about innovation: simple problems in sharing data between different systems/providers leads to bad outcomes all…
Phrase X is just a phrase what’s next is phrase Y. Loop ad nauseum
Interactive AI is just faster generative AI. It's not a transition but a trend as with all computing. I do look forward to in about 10 years to be able to sit down in VR with any historical figure for a deep conversation.
> with any historical figure Don't you mean "with a fictional representation of a historical figure"?
The magazine I worked for at the time was about to publish an article claiming that DeepMind had failed to comply with data protection regulations when accessing records from some 1.6 million patients to set up those collaborations—a claim later backed up by a government investigation. Suleyman couldn’t see why we would publish a story that was hostile to his company’s efforts to improve health care. As long as he co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> with any historical figure Don't you mean "with a fictional representation of a historical figure"?
at some point this distinction will lose its meaning