Technology

A Voyager reference out in the wild! LMAO

A slightly better metric to train it on would be chances of survival/years of life saved thanks to the transplant. However those also suffer from human bias due to the past decisions that influenced who got a transpant and thus what data we were able to gather.

Nah bud, you just authorize whatever the doctor orders are because they are more knowledgable of the situation.

a reflection of who is in charge of it

not even that. it's an inherently more regressive version of whatever data that person feeds it.

the two arguments for deploying this shit outside of very narrow laboratory uses, where everyone was already using other statistical models.

A. this is one last grasp at fukuyama's 'end of history', one last desperate scream of the liberal order that they want to be regressive shit heads and build the abdication machine as their grand industrial-philosophical project, so they can do whatever horrible shit they want, and claim that they're still compassionate and only doing it because computer said so.

B. this is a project by literal monarchists. people who wish to kill democracy. to murder truth and collaboration; replace it with blind tribalistic loyalty to a fuhrer/king. the rhetoric coming from a lot of the funders of these things supports this.

this technology is existentially evil, and will be the end of our society either way. it must be stopped. the people who work on it must be stopped. the people who fund it must be hanged.

Responsibility. We’ve yet to decide as a society how we want to handle who is held responsible when the AI messes up and people get hurt.

You’ll start to see AI being used as a defense of plausible deniability as people continue to shirk their responsibilities. Instead of dealing with the tough questions, we’ll lean more and more on these systems to make it feel like it’s outside our control so there’s less guilt. And under the current system, it’ll most certainly be weaponized by some groups to indirectly hurt others.

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”

AI would be fine. we do not have artificial intelligence. full stop. none of the technologies being talked about even approach intelligence. it's literally just autocorrect. do you know how the autocorrect on your phone's software keyboard works? then you know how a large language model works. it's exactly the same formulae, just scaled up and recursed a bunch. I could have endless debates about what 'intelligence' is, and I don't know that there's a single position I would commit to very hard, but I know, dead certain, that it is not this. turing and minsky agreed when they first threw this garbage away in 1951-too many hazards, too few benefits, and insane unreasonable costs.

but there's more to it than that. large (whatever) models are inherently politically conservative. they are made of the past, they do not struggle, they do not innovate, and they do not integrate new concepts, because they don't integrate any concept's, they just pattern match. you cannot have social progress when decisions are made by large (whatever) models. you cannot have new insights. you cannot have better policies, you cannot improve. you can only cleave closer and closer to the past, and reinforce it by feeding it its own decisions.

It could perhaps be argued, in a society that had once been perfect and was doing pretty well, that this is tolerable in some sectors, as long as someone keeps an eye on it. right now we're a smouldering sacrifice zone of a society. that means any training data would be toxic horror or toxic horror THAT IS ON FIRE. this is bad. these systems are bad. anyone who advocates for these systems outside extremely niche uses that probably all belong in a lab is a bad person.

and I think, if that isn't your enemy, your priorities are deeply fucked, to the point you belong in a padded room or a pine box.

everything republicans complained about can be done under Trump twice as bad, twice as evil and they will be 'happy' and sing his praises

What do you think the AI would be trained on?

See also: UnitedHealthCare

A lot of systems we have already made are super fucked up. this is true. a lot of them were designed to fuck shit up, and be generally evil. we do that sometimes.

these systems only serve to magnify them. see, there's been a massive marketing push is to call these things "artificial intelligence". they're not. they tell you it's all to complex to explain, but type something on your phone. no, really, do it. like a sentence or two. anything.

you just used the small easily comprehensible version of a large (thing) model. the problem is, as you try to scale complexity on these, both accuracy and compute resources grow exponentially, because it's literally the same kind of algorithm as your software keyboard uses to autocorrect, but with a bunch of recursion in it and much larger samples to reference every time someone hits a key.

there are some philosophical implications to this!

see, there is no neutral. there is no such thing as a view from nowhere. which means these systems are not. they need to be trained on something. you don't just enter axioms. that would be actual AI. this, again, isn't that. these are tools for making statistical correlations.

there's no way to do this that is 'neutral' or 'objective'. so what data do you think these tools get fed? Lets say you're a bank, let's say you're wells fargo, and you want to make a large home-loan-assessment model. so you feed it all the data from your institution going back to the day your company was founded. back in stagecoach and horse times.

so you have names of applicants, and house statistics, and geographic location, and all sorts of variables to correlate and weigh in deciding who gets a home loan.

which is great if your last name is, for example: hapsburg. less good if your last name is, for example: freeman. and you can try to find ways to compensate, if you want to. keeping in mind that the people who made this system may actively want to stop you. but it's possible. but these systems are very very good at finding secret little correlations. they're fucking amazing at it. it's kind of their shit. this is the thing they're actually good at. so you'll find weird new incomprehensibly cryptic markers for how to be a racist piece of shit, all of which will stay within the black box and be used to entrench historical financial bigotry.

death is the great equalizer, but this system can be backed up indefinitely. it will not die unless somebody kills it. which could be really hard. people can learn to be less shit, at least in theory-we can have experiences off the job that wake us up to ways we used to suck. this system can't though. people can be audited, but aside from rebuilding the whole damn thing, you can't really do maintenance on these things. the webs of connections are too complicated, and maybe on purpose, we can't know what changing an already trained large (whatever) model will do.

so these systems are literally incapable of being better than us. they are designed to be worst. they are designed to justify our worst impulses. they are designed to excuse the most vile shit we always wanted to do. they are forged from the jungian shadow of our society, forged from the sins, and only the sins, of our ancestors, forged with the intent of severing our connection to material reality, and forcing all people to surrender. to lay down arms in support of the great titan truth that has always stood between regressive agendas and their thousand year reich.

so please stop shilling for this neon-genesis-evangellion-ass-fuckery.

Creatinin in urine was used as a measure of kidney function for literal decades despite African Americans having lower levels despite worse kidneys by other factors. Creatinine level is/was a primary determinant of transplant eligibility. Only a few years ago some hospitals have started to use inulin which is a more race and gender neutral measurement of kidney function.

No algorithm matters if the input isn't comprehensive enough and cost effective biological testing is not.

Tho those complicated outcome trends can have issues with things like minorities having worse health outcomes due to a history of oppression and poorer access to Healthcare. Will definitely need humans overseeing it cause health data can be misleading looking purely at numbers

Everyone likes to think that AI is objective, but it is not. It is biased by its training which includes a lot of human bias.

I believe a good doctor, properly focused, will outperform an AI. AI are also still prone to hallucinations, which is extremely bad in medicine. Where they win is against a tired, overworked doctor with too much on his plate.

Where it is useful is as a supplement. An AI can put a lot of seemingly innocuous information together to spot more unusual problems. Rarer conditions can be missed, particularly if they share symptoms with more common problems. An AI that can flag possibilities for the doctor to investigate would be extremely useful.

An AI diagnostic system is a tool for doctors to use, not a replacement.

It is better at simple pattern recognition, but much worse at complex diagnoses.

It is useful as a help to doctors but won't replace them.

As an example, it can give you a good prediction on who likely has lung cancer out of thousands of CT images. It will completely fuck up prognoses and treatment recommendations though.

has it? source?