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

Midjourney Medical

midjourney.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 927 posts

Re: Midjourney Medical

#341

Post by vasco »

david_shi wrote: post #332
convnet wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a controversial and complicated idea. The downside, and the reason why most doctors do not recommend full body scans, is that every human body is a bit weird and there will almost always be something "wrong" that will be visible in a full body scan. This can lead to unnecessary testing, anxiety, and even unnecessary procedures. Many of these oddities flagged by the scan would never have caused any actual issues…

I've heard this argument before and it's always seemed downstream of capacity constraints and the current incentives of the healthcare industry. There's a reason why billionaires like David Rockefeller, Larry Ellison, and Rupert Murdoch are able to live much longer lives than average, and having an oncall health team (that I'm sure does frequent testing and monitoring) is a big contributor to that. More testing and d…

It's obviously a lie to get us to accept no tests due to limited machines. The same as when COVID started masks "didn't help" because they didn't yet secure enough supply for everyone, then when they did, suddenly the masks helped.

Every system that exists as a black box is more understandable with more sensing, not less. Our bodies are not special.

It's also ridiculous that the proposition goes like:

1. Doctor knows some tests will flag tumors or variations that look weird and that we shouldn't then go investigate all of them

2. Doctor shuts off their brain and will then investigate all of them by doing invasive procedures

Just knowing how many such variations there are and if they grow or not is useful information. But the doctors pretend like they are super smart before the test and super dumb right after.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#342

Post by jibal »

adastra22 wrote: post #259
kilbuz wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

false positives are a real problem

Only if you let them. The false positive thing is a nonissue that only arises from assuming you would respond to information a certain way.

That makes no sense at all, unless you're saying that people should respond to all such information by ignoring it.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#343

Post by mrandish »

Jtsummers wrote: post #267
mrandish wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They've lost the plot, especially with the spa. Yeah, that's not just 'cart before the horse', it's more like cart before the wheel. They make a bunch of extraordinary claims yet offer zero evidence, info or even a plausible hypothesis on how those claims might be possible at the scale, timeframe (2027) and unit economics implied. Thank goodness they really thought through the accent lighting for a calming user exp…

But they have a picture showing a higher resolution Ultrasound CT result than a 1978 MRI! Surely that's important and useful information by which we can judge their product. https://cdn.midjourney.com/static/medical/media/first_mri_vs... From: https://www.midjourney.com/medical/scan_gallery

I did see that. And it does look better. Okay, I'm sold! Sign me up for my spa visit including avocado facial peel, genital waxing and computed axial tomography ultrasound.

More seriously, I assumed that CT Ultrasound image is from Butterfly's actual FDA-approved handheld medical device, not the Midjourney 360 submerged ring - as there's no evidence that is working. Since the Midjourney site has no helpful information, I just asked a friendly AI to do a comparison of what's actually proven to work in the Butterfly chip which Midjourney licensed and this 360 degree, full body, submerged concept - and essentially what's not been proven to work are those three differences: 360 degree ring of 40 butterfly chips, full body at once (requiring solving distance and speed challenges as well as a massive signal processing problem to extract and denoise signal), and doing it submerged.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#344

Post by i5heu »

diabllicseagull wrote: post #238
concrete_head wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And doesn't bone pretty much block all ultrasound waves? There is a time and place for ultrasound, just like there is for MRI or Xray. So im curious to know the limitations of this device

I'm just guessing here but similar to a CAT scan, having actuators/probes at all angles could mean you can get an image around such obstacles. skull is probably an exception and it's the reason why we don't see any head scans in any one of the videos.

Also I imagine it pretty difficult to get good data from that because of all the muscles that do stuff if put in water and you would hold your breath.

There is no way people will put up with that.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#346

Post by cbolton »

gfodor wrote: post #277
arcticbull wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t make me tap the sign. Bayes Theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem There’s a very good reason we don’t test asymptomatic people in low incidence populations. Basically all positives are false positives when you do that, no matter how accurate the test is. When you’re testing healthy randos for everything the odds of a positive being false have so many 9s it would make an SRE weep. Unless this is…

You can just run more tests to get increased statistical power.

No you can't. Statistical tests assume independent data points. Testing the same individual repeatedly would be pseudoreplication, leading to wrong conclusions.

If you mean run different tests, where you collect different kinds of data from the same individual, sure but that's not something you can "just do" in the general case.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#348

Post by keiferski »

I have a mixed response:

1. It kind of makes sense that an AI imagery company would apply that to other novel applications of imagery and computing and try to do something cool with it.

2. Midjourney as a brand is all over the place and this feels -off, somehow. I think from a branding pov they should have just started a different company with a different name. Perhaps a single image-focused umbrella company named [Name] with Midjourney and this medtech company as separate subsidiaries.

3. AI imagery companies suddenly making medtech products and spas feels very “we don’t know what to do, so we’re going to throw spaghetti at the wall.” That doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll be bad, just that it’s not typically what you’d do if you’re working on something super successful already.

4. AFAIK they are entirely self-funded and so this really isn’t about VC scaling or anything like that. But that doesn’t mean they’re immune to the same cultural pressures.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#350

Post by jibal »

bastawhiz wrote: post #208
bonsai_spool wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's _git gud_ There are physical limits to detection and technical parameters that make some situations indeterminate even for the best of the 'gud'. It is frustrating that, hearing an argument from many different individuals over a long time, you assume that each speaker is missing the critical insight that you possess. > but the tools to make scalable, calibrated risk estimates based on large data dumps is getti…

I go to the doctor every year for a checkup without symptoms. Why a year? Why not every six months? Two weeks? Day? If the false positive rate is demonstrably low, I can't see the risk. People who think they need a doctor will go to a doctor with or without a fancy scan. People who want to play armchair physician will play armchair physician with or without a fancy scan.

> If the false positive rate is demonstrably low

Regardless of how accurate a test is, by Bayes Theorem if it's done on enough healthy people the false positives will swamp the true positives.

Post reply on HN