Live data from Hacker News

"AI will cure cancer" misunderstands both AI and medicine

rachel.fast.ai

71–80 of 207 posts

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

#71
post #39
post #21

I do think AI has a chance to make healthcare, for cancer and other diseases, a lot more proactive. Even though we know prognosis is much better for cancer, and many other diseases, if you catch it early, we do essentially nothing to catch it early. My understanding is that this is because: 1. Administering regular MRIs, blood panels, etc. is expensive, in terms of the initial data collection 2. It’s also expensive,…

There are also downstream consequences of ordering tests aside from cost; not all tests are harmless. As an example, regular screening for prostate cancer isn't recommended as much. Partially because it is often so slow-growing that people often die of other causes before the cancer even begins to cancer, and because the definitive test is a biopsy which is somewhat invasive. Rates of complications are relatively low…

Sure, of course you would make practical decisions about what kinds of tests to administer, and not proactively administer the tests that have significant negative side effects.

For the other point, personally I don’t really buy the argument of “it’s better not to know you have cancer X, because it might end up being low impact.” If we had excellent regular screening, yes detection of low impact cancers would become a lot more common, but I think people’s perception of them would change too. If it became a common thing for cancers to be detected, but the detection could reliably say “this is likely low impact, we should just keep an eye on it but not treat it”, this would be a lot less scary. It would become normalized IMO. Cancer diagnoses are partly so scary right now because we’re often mostly catching cancers that have progressed and are causing symptoms, so the public perception is rightly “cancer diagnosis = very scary.”

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

#72

The predominate view of AI is that it is essentially magic. Which of course couldn’t be further from the truth. But I find these arguments much easier to understand if you look at it through that lens. Of course magic can cure cancer because… it’s magic!

Magic or god. I’m at a point that if I can replace AI with magic/god in a phrase I know it’s bullshit.

The real test is to replace AI with "humanity, given 1000 years". If the statement is reasonable after replacement then it is possible. If it still sounds unlikely then it merits deeper inspection. Will humanity cure cancer given 1000 of study and medical development? It's quite possible, and AI will probably help. So it's not unreasonable to claim that AI can cure cancer (eventually).

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

#73

I dislike these articles that end up being written with a leftist bias that AI is already being used to [purposely] control and marginalize people. There are definite inequalities in society including in medicine and these biases I am sure make it into training data. However, while we should be watchful, I don't think there is a conscious decision by "the man" to purposely put certain groups down using AI. AI researc…

Like most tools, it will be used by both oppressors and the oppressed around the world. The concern I have is that the prohibitive cost of building foundational models means that it will disproportionately benefit those with extreme resources at the expense of those without.

I guess they felt as if someone had to stand up for the oppressors!

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

#74

I dislike these articles that end up being written with a leftist bias that AI is already being used to [purposely] control and marginalize people. There are definite inequalities in society including in medicine and these biases I am sure make it into training data. However, while we should be watchful, I don't think there is a conscious decision by "the man" to purposely put certain groups down using AI. AI researc…

Why is facts about how these systems hurt people leftist?

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

#75

This article seems to avoid talking about the core improvement AI will make to radiology - more accurate analysis. It mentions that patients may not get an MRI in the first place...but at least for those who do, surely there will be an improvement. The referral/bias issue will exist no matter what the technology is used. garbage article.

That not curing cancer. It's just an improved component of our existing mechanism which cannot cure everyone even if it could reach them all.

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

#77
post #60
post #21

I do think AI has a chance to make healthcare, for cancer and other diseases, a lot more proactive. Even though we know prognosis is much better for cancer, and many other diseases, if you catch it early, we do essentially nothing to catch it early. My understanding is that this is because: 1. Administering regular MRIs, blood panels, etc. is expensive, in terms of the initial data collection 2. It’s also expensive,…

We found out about my daughter's type 1 diabetes purely by accident. I found a blood glucose test kit doing some spring cleaning and asked the family to gather around to check our sugar. It was really just a joke but I thought it would be fun. Queue three results around 100 and one at 270. We tested again the next day and it was 290. Finding type 1 diabetes this way in a young teenager was so absolutely out of the no…

Yeah that’s wild! I do think proactive medical screening is something most medical systems have mostly given up on, other than in very targeted ways, for very specific diseases in very specific high risk populations. But I don’t think this is because it’s a fundamentally bad idea, I think it’s more that it’s impractical right now. It does seem to me that AI has a chance to make it practical.

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

#78
I can’t understand why people all write these articles about something fast evolving. Five years ago people would hang thought “AI will make art” laughable and now some very successful movie producers are shuttering projects because they think they’ll be using it soon.

Today’s AI won’t cure cancer, but we have no idea what the AI of 20 or 200 years from now will be able to do.

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

#79
post #21

I do think AI has a chance to make healthcare, for cancer and other diseases, a lot more proactive. Even though we know prognosis is much better for cancer, and many other diseases, if you catch it early, we do essentially nothing to catch it early. My understanding is that this is because: 1. Administering regular MRIs, blood panels, etc. is expensive, in terms of the initial data collection 2. It’s also expensive,…

> Even though we know prognosis is much better for cancer, and many other diseases, if you catch it early,

5. Diagnosing cancer/disease early does not necessarily improve outcomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_time_bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_time_bias

> we do essentially nothing to catch it early.

Huh? That’s the whole point of cancer screening which we do a lot of in the West. The benefit of which remain hotly debated. New tests are also constantly being researched.

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

#80
post #26
post #21

I do think AI has a chance to make healthcare, for cancer and other diseases, a lot more proactive. Even though we know prognosis is much better for cancer, and many other diseases, if you catch it early, we do essentially nothing to catch it early. My understanding is that this is because: 1. Administering regular MRIs, blood panels, etc. is expensive, in terms of the initial data collection 2. It’s also expensive,…

> Even though we know prognosis is much better for cancer, and many other diseases, if you catch it early This is, to some extent, misleading. I mean, earlier treatment is beneficial, but there's a significant confound. All else being equal, if a cancer is less aggressive and slowly growing it is more likely to be detected early. Put in other terms, the cancers detected earlier by screening are a very different popul…

Sure, but my understanding is that for many types of cancer, detecting that specific cancer early does make a big difference. It can be the difference between a single, minimally invasive surgery to remove a tiny rumour that hasn’t spread, that can be effective even without chemo/radiation/etc., and stage 4 cancer that has spread a tonne where even with extensive chemo/radiation/etc., your chances aren’t good.
Post reply on HN