DeepMind cofounder: Generative AI is just a phase. What’s next is interactive AI • Hacker News Board

Re: DeepMind cofounder: Generative AI is just a phase. What’s next is interactive AI

#31

Post by circlemaker » Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 4:55 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #14

sdenton4 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s weird you mention fragmentation and regulation as the culprits when it’s pretty obviously consolidation (to Epic and Cerner) that led to this and it’s regulation (like 21st Century Cures Act) that’s actually undoing it… by requiring that consolidated players can’t disrupt fragmentation efforts (via FHIR).

Please expand on that a bit

Re: DeepMind cofounder: Generative AI is just a phase. What’s next is interactive AI

#32

Post by edgyquant » Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 4:55 PM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #10

paulusthe wrote: post #3

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…

> There is a real argument on the other side, though

No there isn’t. The rest of your comment can be safely disregarded thanks to you opening with this.

“We need to build a better tomorrow!,” we will, the people actually trying to within accepted norms. Not SV grifters who’ve destabilized our entire society and ended privacy all for ad revenue.

Re: DeepMind cofounder: Generative AI is just a phase. What’s next is interactive AI

#33

Post by intrasight » Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 5:01 PM UTC

robertk wrote: post #29

mab122 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at some point this distinction will lose its meaning

Not really. Only a tiny slice of the historical person’s memories and persona is recorded. There is a lot more entropy to their representation that died when their brain did. Ergo, whatever “perfect” simulacrum is presented will need to infer the gaps and ultimately be fictional.

I guess technically fictional, but grounded in their public writing and speech.

Re: DeepMind cofounder: Generative AI is just a phase. What’s next is interactive AI

#34

Post by jprete » Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 5:01 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #27

jfk13 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with any historical figure Don't you mean "with a fictional representation of a historical figure"?

Quite often even history books are fictional representations of historical figures.

True, but history books have an inherent subjective distance. It’s always “person X writing about person Y”. I expect AI historical-person simulacra to be inherently more convincing than can ever be justified.

Re: DeepMind cofounder: Generative AI is just a phase. What’s next is interactive AI

#35

Post by ethanbond » Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 5:05 PM UTC

circlemaker wrote: post #31

ethanbond wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s weird you mention fragmentation and regulation as the culprits when it’s pretty obviously consolidation (to Epic and Cerner) that led to this and it’s regulation (like 21st Century Cures Act) that’s actually undoing it… by requiring that consolidated players can’t disrupt fragmentation efforts (via FHIR).

Please expand on that a bit

At least in the US, basically Epic and Cerner took over the EHR market and took effective ownership of all medical records and actively prevented care providers, patients, and researchers from easy access to those records (including for migrations to a competitive EHR — basically impossible).

Two pieces of legislation and guidance in 2016 and 2020 basically required that any EHR has to allow providers and patients to pull their records, which at first Epic was like “okay go for it, but the data model of those records is proprietary.” The government had to issue additional guidance that records must be exportable via a standard interface (e.g. HL7 FHIR), which extricates the records from any of the EHR’s internal data model.

The pre-FHIR/pre-21st Century Cures Act was pretty horrible for America’s biomedical research posture: it simply isn’t capable of doing the sort of national-scale research that e.g. the NHS system can do, which is especially valuable for understanding things like COVID and for doing research on any treatments/vaccines being used in the wild.

During COVID it became clear lot of Americans have this implicit idea that there’s a way for researchers to just “look at what’s going on” in the wild and there literally isn’t. It just recently went from effectively impossible (due to consolidation of EHR records and affiliated commercial interests locking them down) to now just very hard (due to privacy, data quality, data harmonization, and still commercial interests). That change happened via regulation and will open the door to fragmentation (while maintaining interop).

Re: DeepMind cofounder: Generative AI is just a phase. What’s next is interactive AI

#36

Post by sdenton4 » Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 5:06 PM UTC

edgyquant wrote: post #32

sdenton4 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There is a real argument on the other side, though No there isn’t. The rest of your comment can be safely disregarded thanks to you opening with this. “We need to build a better tomorrow!,” we will, the people actually trying to within accepted norms. Not SV grifters who’ve destabilized our entire society and ended privacy all for ad revenue.

Perhaps you should bother to read the rest of the comment. It's not just about a better tomorrow, it's about a better today that we're missing out on because data handling is such a mess in the health sector.

I have a higher risk of death because health data handling sucks. That's a trade-off. You might like that the status quo is what it is, but it doesn't mean the trade-off isn't real.

Re: DeepMind cofounder: Generative AI is just a phase. What’s next is interactive AI

#37

Post by pixl97 » Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 5:07 PM UTC

robg wrote: post #5

Does anyone have recommendations on people pointing out the wide epistemological limits of current and future datasets? I’ve been thinking about the limits of statistical AI for the last 20 years when I did my Ph.D. in embodied cognition. Folks like Andy Clark then put much more emphasis on having bodies.

>Folks like Andy Clark then put much more emphasis on having bodies

The word body is very biased in the human mind. What is a body exactly? What is the extension of a body and where does the system boundary of the body and extensions stop at? Where do the human biases of having a 'self body' keep us from realizing that things things like 'systems bodies' or 'society bodies' exist and incorporate their own forms of intelligence?

The idea of hive minds is generally presented to us as alien in movies and literature, but to me seems like the most likely form of AI. Sensor networks, be they are implemented in robots like we see in media, flying drones, 'smart' surfaces, devices we carry around, even in ways we've not imagined where data is shared between small processing units close to the data for quick reaction and then further processed by powerful AI computers elsewhere seem like a much more likely architecture than what we are used to in humans.

Re: DeepMind cofounder: Generative AI is just a phase. What’s next is interactive AI

#38

Post by CamperBob2 » Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 5:08 PM UTC

paulusthe wrote: post #15

sdenton4 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"regulations slow innovation" is not a valid reason to ignore any regulation one finds annoying. That said, my problem isn't that he broke the rules. My problem is that, when confronted about having broken the rules, he lied about it then retreated into "why don't you believe the mission bro?" As if his solution is the only possible solution to the problem. He's full of himself, doesn't care about rules, and gaslight…

"regulations slow innovation" is not a valid reason to ignore any regulation one finds annoying.

Eh. We'd still be stuck with taxis, Prohibition, and 55 MPH speed limits if we followed this dictum. Not to mention paying taxes to the King of England.

Re: DeepMind cofounder: Generative AI is just a phase. What’s next is interactive AI

#39

Post by chaxor » Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 5:17 PM UTC

edgyquant wrote: post #32

sdenton4 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There is a real argument on the other side, though No there isn’t. The rest of your comment can be safely disregarded thanks to you opening with this. “We need to build a better tomorrow!,” we will, the people actually trying to within accepted norms. Not SV grifters who’ve destabilized our entire society and ended privacy all for ad revenue.

Is there not a win-win situation through post-quantum homomorphic encryption? I'm not an expert in the area, but I imagine it's possible to set up a centralized system that contains pretty much all patient data for a nation, in a completely encrypted state. Then each institution/hospital could apply for access to make an application which generates only an aggregated metric of interest as an output, such as the map example given above, which could provide real-time notifications to medical personnel in the area.

I realize that many will come to say that the homomorphic encryption capabilities right now require a long time and many CPU cycles to compute some plaintext equivalent, but there would still be a huge improvement in the time required to be notified in the world today.

Additionally, performing studies in academia would likely be a far better experience if the data was available in a single place, and aggregate information could be gathered with a single API.

Re: DeepMind cofounder: Generative AI is just a phase. What’s next is interactive AI

#40

Post by BoiledCabbage » Sun, Sep 17, 2023, 5:17 PM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #10

paulusthe wrote: post #3

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…

I mean, do people no longer have any concept of ethics? And I don't mean this in the abstract sense, I mean literal practical everyday ethics. Understanding the concept of tradeoffs and consequences of actions and the rest.

I feel like we've built a church (or possibly cult) that had mantras of "Innovation at all cost. Liquidity at all costs...." among a few others. With no view whatsoever as to what the implications

And I seriously am starting to think that HN and general SV culture. Specifically here on HN, the number of times I've seen a justification end in one is those thought terminating cliches is legitimately concerning. The amount of reasoning that boils down to "this is good because it improves innovation. And because it improves innovation it is good." And not only zero thought on the implications of taking the action suggested - what seems like an unawareness that one should even consider the consequences of taking the action. It's as if "we've reached the 'innovation is good' stage of the thought state machine so the state machine should terminate and return success".

It's absolutely mind-boggling to me that anyone could post a comment on saying yes we should give up medical privacy and not even have a single sentence on the negative consequences of doing that. "Why would one need to think about the negative consequences? It has a positive consequence so clearly we should do it."

Is it a gap in CS education? General education? Is it the personality type of us engineers? Is it nature? Nurture? Both? Is it social? Others don't step in to provide that feedback when it happens? How do we even approach it?