Climber4x4
105613
3229
30
#the_more_you_know #mildly_interesting #technology #latticeclimbing #awesome
Oct 14, 2024 2:31 PM
Climber4x4
105613
3229
30
#the_more_you_know #mildly_interesting #technology #latticeclimbing #awesome
Jawesome19
It can do both. How cool
drinkthederpentine
#1 they're not mutually exclusive. It's such an ignorant take to act like all AI is ChatGPT and that they don't share many fundamental similarities in the field of machine learning (or even statistics) as a whole
moonshadowkati
Weeeeeell it's doing both.
ballsoutflyer
I also want to see AI do this. Not "we reject your resume and job application for reasons."
ArandomDane
Fairly sure this is machine learning using a highly curated data set, set into a model not the "throw all the data at it, and see what it does" Which is what we currently understand as AI.
whitefoxkei
Walmart is using it to detect theft at self-checkout too. It's about as effective as the TSA.
thecheerfulpessimist
So, 5-30% accurate? https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/11/09/tsa-misses-70-of-fake-weapons-but-thats-an-improvement/
whitefoxkei
Okay, it's worse than the TSA. It goes off when someone is bagging the shit they already scanned. I have yet to see it activate for anything even remotely suspicious.
PenguinNamedWobbles
Wait.... so did it detect cancer with AI and then they waited 5 years until it got worse?
SmHELLboy89
I don't mean to send you down a rabbit hole but a
Nobel Prize was won last week for work on protein folding using AI. The role in predicting cancer risk and understanding complex biological processes like protein folding shows how far we come in the detection and personalized medicine for cancer
https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2020/12/23/what-could-deepmind-solving-the-protein-folding-problem-mean-for-cancer-research/
bildschoen
*Thanks.
PaperinoVB
For what I see in these images, this is a comparison between a current images and one of 5 years before, to detect the differences. So you can say "this may be a cancer because is a net growth from the little dot of 5 years ago". Don't get me wrong, it' a great thing, but it's not what that caption conveys. The original studio shows a very different working for IA cancer detection. Pesto here: https://news.mit.edu/2021/robust-artificial-intelligence-tools-predict-future-cancer-0128
Totallyscrewedinaustin
Neat!
7YearsALurker
symmetry7
You sound like you know what you are talking about.
You might not fit in here. : P
PaperinoVB
LOL :-) Well, I'm not a professional. But you would be astounded at knowing how many things you can learn when you've been intensely involved in a specific situation.
Thornaxe
If we started hacking on boobs every time there was a spot the size of the upper picture, there wouldn’t be any boobs left.
PaperinoVB
There is a direct - non linear - correlation between the speed of growth of a [pre]cancerous lesion and it's dangerousness. If that growth happened in five years it should be a manageable problem. If it happened in a year, it's a bigger problem, but still addressable. If it took some month, well... the good news is that it's still restricted to an area, but you should move FAST.
Ryebread91
Part of the problem is false positives. The more we test the more likely we'll encounter a false positive and perform a non needed procedure but I don't know what the alternative would be.
Thornaxe
Bingo. Women in countries that don’t aggressively test for breast cancer don’t die from breast cancer as frequently as the amount of cancer we think we find. Which is not to say we should test less, rather that we need better diagnostics for biopsies etc.
FrozenCoast
Working in medical imaging, what I see as the problem is that we detect a lot of small, slow growing tumors (both benign and malignant), but the fast growing deadly tumors are often not found until it is too late. The main benefit that we do find is patients with family history of these deadly cancers are tested very early and they often survive where they would have died. The mass testing of everyone with no known risk factors often does more harm than good.
Thornaxe
Understanding more about the genetics of breast cancer definitely helps a LOT.
jekath
Finding cancer and being diagnosed isn't always that good either. I'm 52. That means it's likely that I have some cancerous cells in my prostate. And it's very likely that nothing will come of it. I could most likely live with it until I'm 250 years old. Chances are something else gets me before that, of course.
But - if I got a diagnose, I'd be terrified. My kids would be terrified. The treatment would be unpleasant. Finding cancer early isn't necessarily all good.
RelevantCommentBot
The chances you'll live to 250 are small, but never zero...
johnwilliams123
Yes that's why some doctors caution against cancer screening. They say to wait until you have symptoms. But then some cancer progress to the final stage without symptoms...
jekath
We have a screening for breast cancer in my country. And it's fine. But treatment of breast cancer has gotten a lot better in the last 20 years, so catching it early is less important now.
It still saves lives, the screening. But it also means a lot of women are getting treatments that will do no good. There are no easy answers. I for certainly don't have them. But screening isn't ALL good. It has downsides.
marsilies
From what I can find, for those where the cancer is found and they think the staging/risk is low enough for active surveillance, only about half ever need more treatment. Which, on one hand, only a 50/50 chance of it getting worse, but I'd rather they find it and actively monitor it in case I'm in the bad half. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer#Management
jekath
Yeah, me too. But, there's so much complexity. Imagine if the doctors had to do 20 operations for one person to live 5 years longer. 20 people living in fear. 10 of them getting limp dick for life, maybe...I don't know the numbers at all, but there are numbers. With these implications. Many people will get treatments to no avail.
I read a number once about how many women had breasts removed before one life was saved. I can't recall the number, but I remember it surprised me.
marsilies
Maybe you're young, and you seem to be speaking hypothetically so probably don't have direct experience. However, seeing as I experienced witnessing my wife die in the ICU, I would give anything for a few more DAYs with her, let alone years. Like, yes, cancer sucks, but there's worse things than surviving cancer, or having to be regularly checked for cancer.
jekath
I was there when my father died of cancer. And when my mother had breast cancer.
This is very real to me. The terror when my mother had cancer was awful. For the whole family. The treatment was not as bad as it is for some people, but it was bad enough. And the thought of 50 or 100 families to go through that for one life to be saved...it is very real. Our pain was very real. My sleepless nights, scared that I would lose my mother before I had kids. It was real.
Deikin
I've seen plenty of examples of AI studying breasts.....
Gibleteousjack
LogicDude
I've spent a lot of time studying AI breasts myself.
usingYourMomAsAHat
Im something of a scientist myself
tarataqa
( . Y . )
echoawoo
Technically even I'm AI. I was made by humans, afterall, so I'm artificial ! Idk about the intelligent part, though
middlehead
Snitching on Allen Iverson is not a good plan
UncleMeaty
We're talking about practice... We ain't talking about the game! We're talking about practice, man!
ImgurIsOutOfUsernames
I've seen plenty of examples of breasts studying AI.
TheFleshItBurns
And in groups of 3. At least in the ones I've looked at. Extensively.
uhohnsaisonme
Only seen? Not ordered?
4etherling
In this economy!?
cattlegrazer82
This guy diffuses.
Deikin
I ordered all this AI anime tiddy, before anyone asks!
[deleted]
[deleted]
KeyMasher
aShogunNamedMarcus
Apparently ads featured lube-leaking pocket pussies sucking off a dildo are A-okay but big titty Padme is just a bit too spicy for the mods
KeyMasher
They are such tools... I've had even tamer stuff flagged before so I get it, but it's just stupid. At least some of us were briefly entertained <3
Davedavedavedavedave
Housemaster
Davedavedavedavedave
blackelf
Capitalism says no. AI is gonna be used (is already used) to spread propaganda (see X(crement), where every other account is a Bot controlled by Elon to push Trump).
Then it will take all jobs, which should be a good thing, but it will not be: the Trillionaire Rulers will simply not need you anymore, and you can go die in some ghetto along with your family. No? Check out how much Musk donated to charity. Nothing: everything went directly to himself for tax cuts..
Ornado
save the boobies
FunkyButttlovin
But can it see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
Larktonguesinadicecup
Google's AI overview says this: "Kids likely love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch for its real cinnamon flavor and crispy crunch. It's also a popular cereal and a good source of calcium, with 12 vitamins and minerals per serving."
I'm not sure it's particularly insightful, I especially doubt that the authenticity of the cinnamon flavor is important to kids. But it does have an answer.
frozensoul94
AI is good at analysis. Just look at all the new Nazca drawings it found.
UsernamesCanOnlyContainLettersAndNumbers
Years ago, I worked at a health company. During an all hands, employees brought up using anonymized data to train an AI system that could help with things like this. The idea was shot down because it wouldn't make money for the company or its clients.
Nykidemus
Sing it with me friends, "For profit healthcare is parasitic and should be illegal!"
waynep7120
Women. Stop wearing bras that are so tight they act like tourniquets preventing the lymph glands from draining. The cells discharge will cause the lymph glands until they burst spreading cellular waste material into your breast and armpit tissues
backroadstoboston1
Amen
QuartzPoker
It's a completely different AI.
sv1rr
That's a ballsack.
Moxmox
wait..so humans can't see these very visible dots?
MeowWoof
What's not shown is how many people the AI said would have breast cancer and DIDN'T get it within 5 years.
AzraelEternity
Oh no! The possible scenario of your doctor saying "Hey, this is possibly an early indicator of cancer, so we want to keep an eye on it before it develops. We can do a minimally invasive biopsy to be certain. If it turns out to be nothing at least we made certain."
The only problem in any of that is U.S. insurance companies because if there is no cancer they'll probably deem it as not covered and charge the person $100k.
MeowWoof
When 13% of women will get breast cancer sometime in their life, you could develop an "AI" that always said "yes" and replicate the posted result fairly easily. But it wouldn't really be useful. False positives cause mental trauma, unnecessary follow up tests disrupting your life, etc. It's not unreasonable to ask what the false positive rate (and the false negative rate, for that matter) is before depending on a test.
revilo314
If it's got a sensitivity of 100 and a specificity of 20% then it really isn't any good. You need a reasonable specificity before it is useful as a screening tool.
blainetog
That, "minimally invasive biopsy," still carries risks of its own. The test would cause stress to the patient, could get infected, and takes up resources from the medical system. The likelihood that it catches something still needs to outweigh those costs. If you're testing basically everyone, that's probably not worth it.
ApothecaryGrant
Machine learning can be used for all kinds of wonderful things. Medicine, quantum physics, engineering, you name it.
But as we've seen with so many technological movements, the first wave will be solutions to problems that didn't need solving being sold to executives who believe every ounce of marketing sold to them. And everyone is worried they'll be left in the dust if they don't also invest in the "AI race."
Only after the bubble bursts will you see the genuine use-cases flourishing.
Larktonguesinadicecup
"AI" is already firmly established and absolutely essential in many fields of research. The genuine use cases have been here for a while now, while we're getting mad about counting fingers in pretty pictures.
ApothecaryGrant
Researchers had always been building their own bespoke tools with hyperspecific purposes, but they weren't aggressively packaging and selling that tech to the public. The 'first wave' I'm talking about is the consumer-grade stuff. It's the massive growth phase as speculative investors chase every niche for software and hardware integrations.
It's like when the internet transitioned from ARPANET to TCP/IP, giving us web 1.0. Though it took a lot longer for that one to be as heavily monetized.
drinkthederpentine
GenAi is nowhere near the "first wave" of ML
AdrianDunne
And yet the AI waited 5 years to tell anyone. This is the beginning of the end.
Sh1tMovieGroup
Great, not content in making art, photographs, movies and music, AI is now staring at bewbs - like, what is there left for me?
PapaRHG
HEY PETER MAN!
florpglorp
Methylation profiling of tumors is pretty cool too. Its used today but not alot of people talk about it.
invaderjak
Now, can we figure out how to do the imaging without flattening breasts into pancakes?
Amousewithchees
That would be nice.
albaboss
HA that would involve giving a fuck about women’s healthcare
heyletsbefriends
fire up the old boob flattener!
Kyen155
.... why are you firing up that waffle iron for?
Kyrorayne
Thats the penis flattener
GingerJam23
The mammo-masher
Th1ng
there are lay down options but I am not informed regarding their accuracy
Beefkins
"Lay down options" which would primarily be MRI, are far more accurate.
JonnyTightlips
MRI isn't "more accurate" really. It just provides different information. It is much more sensitive to Cancers in dense breasts though. Even then, if you screen with MRI, Mammo is still needed for that extra info (mostly calcifications and architectural distortion)
Delabouilliederizquisourit
The only time i had to do a mamogram it didnt hurt so i think the technology might have improved already?
invaderjak
My wife's dr has been watching a spot, so she's had one every 6 months for the past two years and she's sore for the next day or so every time.
CorGoBrrrr
The Medical Industrial Complex:
ImAWeirdMom
Mine are huge (I'm neither young nor attractive so don't get excited) and they make me do MRIs instead.
Beefkins
MRI breast imaging already exists.
Hypothesist
They are still at step 1. They are currently being used to not need to take shirt off
dingofdong
I mean shit, I'd settle for the paddles/gel not being so fucking cold
Kakeukh
No.
invaderjak
Alright then, pancakes for everyone!
Kakeukh
Yummy! :D
YodasLeftEar
more radiation it is... you can't beat physics
Boatsntoes
I prefer to manually check with my hands and use my cell phone camera for the imaging.
EltaninDracoPwc
Ahh, but then the ML model wouldn't work, because any new imaging system wouldn't have the years of past scans to use as training data.
asdfewrewqasd
Isn't this already possible with a CT or MRT? Ignoring the price, of course.
RomanSnow
The other concern is if contrast is needed. Not a doc, so I can't say for sure but a lot of contrasts filter out well enough over the course of the day but repeated exposure might not be ideal in shorter time frames.
Beefkins
For MRI contrast, which is almost always used for breast imaging, there are no deleterious effects.
ThrowingSchadenfreude
Yes. MRIs are MUCH better at detecting breast cancer, particularly for women with dense breast tissue, small tumors or inflammatory breast cancer. Try getting your insurance company to pay for it as a primary screening, though...
Beefkins
Not just primary screening, but other factors are at play. If you tried to use MRI for primary screening, you'd be waiting probably five times as long for a scan or more. Breast MRI imaging requires a special coil, usually takes longer than other exams, are usually only done during day shift because contrast administration requires having a radiologist or other physician on site, and needs to be read by a radiologist that specializes in them.
JonnyTightlips
Breast MR definitely doesn't take longer than other contrast enhanced MR. Source: I'm a radiologist
Beefkins
It does, depending on location due to protocols. I've been at sites where it takes 20 minutes and sites where it takes an hour. At one location I worked, a breast MRI on a 3T using DIXON pulse sequences could be done in roughly 20 minutes. At another location not utilizing DIXON it took roughly an hour. Source: I'm a travel MRI technologist.
cattlegrazer82
Or at least without my doctor pouring syrup all over them?
VodkaReindeer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WqK09f0JFc
Sausagesandplantsandgoldfish
Ooh, look who has a fancy PPO with syrup option!
onecatnokids
Healthcare worker here, I will be laughing about this for the rest of the week. THANKS
Sonicschilidogs
That's my favorite part though, unfortunately the doctor asked me to stop my monthly checks because "Men have a really low chance of breast cancer" and "You're making the nurses uncomfortable when you churn your own butter"
LetsEatGrandpaCommasSaveLives
Strong healthcare. Canadian?
tg2222222
Weird for a proctologist but ok
wadatahmydamie
I like most of the replies so far, but yours made me laugh the hardest
DaveSamsonite
Genuine maple syrup I hope. Applied on a medically appropriate manner, of course. You’re not a waffle
Rayfire3535
Focus group results indicate it's a more cost effective and better tasting option than plain lube.
bound4doom
Lreclusa137
I'm sorry... what? *Googles furiously* What?
Lreclusa137
This is humour right? Right?
Andied
No. I promise this is protocol.
Frederf
*chanting* Og-le waffle! Og-le waffle!
invaderjak
Is the butter ok?
wantedTwo
invaderjak
You spread butter on boobs
Kyen155
......... *throws arms into the air* "Glorious Purpose!!!!!!!!!!!!"
craziicrazii
The butter is essential
jayman0123
without the butter the taste is gone
FishieStardust
khora
Yes, but the radiation will give you cancer.
Beefkins
MRI exists, and does not use ionizing radiation.
Kakeukh
Don't forget to take the piercings off, this time.
ParaspriteHugger
But I get dizzy from me nuclei spinnin'! /s
Beefkins
🎵You spin me right round baby right round🎵
Strostkovy
This is not generative AI. Neural networks have been around for a long time and do a great job in many applications. Generative AI is the new and inaccurate and power hungry AI being shoved down our throats.
Xenarion
No one said it's generative. It's still AI.
vorodar
Did you miss the reply in the screenshot which seems to conflate "AI" with "gen AI chatbots"?
Xenarion
No, I see it categorizing AI chatbot as a subcategory of AI, which it is. And describing the cancer detection one as a separate, and better, usage of AI.
nclu
Image classification was a huge breakthrough and been so useful across lots of fields. The generative AI images we see now really started when experimenters tried taking those classifier networks and running them *backwards*. It was interesting work, so they kept at it. LLMs did a ton of classification and vector mapping work that has drastically increased access to translation, etc. The outputs we see now are a big expensive side quest.
drinkthederpentine
Yes, thank you. It's all branches off of the same tree that is nearly as old as computing itself
OmNachoMama
You're correct. AI and Machine Learning have been around for a long time and are doing great things in science and other areas. The LLMs are the new kid in town.
Zeboku
Don't know why you got downvoted, you are correct
OmNachoMama
Many folks may not understand the history of AI and ML, and that's ok. Hopefully more will be curious and Google it. It takes some of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) away once you understand the technology better
WigglyBlondeNoodle
Exactly. Machine learning has been in the healthcare industry for a very long time at this point, especially in radiology. This is really not new, just not prevalent unfortunately.
tbmchristopher
Generative AI is actually the other half of that - oversimplified, Neural nets look at an image and answer "Yes or no - is this X?" The generative part makes a random configuration of pixels, shows it to the neural net, and asks "Yes or no - is this X?" Most of the time, the answer is no, but it produces these random configurations fast enough to show the neural net, so eventually it hits a "yes," and then shows that to the human who initiated this process.
SimiKusoni
That is not how diffusion models work, randomly generating an image until you land on a perfect image of the intended class would be infinite monkey theorem on steroids. Diffusion models do start with noise but then they essentially act as an ML-based denoiser where the input is coupled with some user-inputted tokens and it progressively denoises the image. If in doubt go google a diffusion model and check the number of output neurons, a binary classifier would have one.
tbmchristopher
Oversimplified.
SimiKusoni
Your explanation isn't oversimplified, it's completely different to how it actually works.
drinkthederpentine
Correct. The other guy is kinda sorta describing a GAN, I think
drinkthederpentine
Generative AI is just a made up term. This is likely based on an RNN. It's all machine learning. Transformer llms are just decoder only. The techniques share tons of fundamentals. Like any technology, it's all about how it's used.
heyletsbefriends
theyre the same thing.
vorodar
Not really?
Godryc
No they are not. Neural Networks are a type of machine learning model inspired by the human brain's structure. They consist of layers of interconnected nodes (neurons) that process data, learn patterns, and make predictions. Neural networks can be used for a variety of tasks, such as classification, regression, and more. 1/2
Godryc
Generative A refers to a broader category of AI models that can create new content, such as text, images, music, or videos. Generative AI often uses specific types of neural networks, like Generative Adversarial Networks or Variational Autoencoders, to produce new data that resembles a training dataset.
Godryc
Neural networks are the underlying technology, while generative AI focuses specifically on content creation.
heyletsbefriends
so both are neural networks, just doing different things. weird of you to say you disagree and then spend 3 paragraphs explaining how you agree with me.
Vincentv137
This, like I am not a huge fan of AI in most cases, but generative AI in the health field is going to be a game changer. This will help to root out so many problems that come into play when there is a ego-centric doctor that is calling the shots based on his limited knowledge.
heyletsbefriends
its not called generative if its used for pattern recognition. its generative when its used for generating shit.
Vincentv137
A neural network isnt going to use a large language model and giant sources anonymized data to assist with individualized healthcare. That is generative AI, it will need to read in a ton of data that is categorized and ranked, at which point they will have a interface (think of a hook into EPIC where all your existing info is stored) to make a list of recommendation based on a reported problem.
notacobra
Hear me out:
If generative AI had been developed ethically, instead of through data sold or taken against people's knowledge or will, then using generative AI to muck around and create funny pictures and stories would actually be the best use for it.
Not to write school essays, not to replace help desk staff, not to proof read speaches..
Just for memes and recreation, hosted on local computers.
fightfightfightlosewinfight
you can also still do that
Filolial
Stable Diffusion is free and open-source, does not require an account and runs on your own computer if you have a half decent GPU. All models / Lora / addons are community made. Are they ethically made? Doubt it, and if there are ones out there they are harder to find. But it is fun to play with, just don't actually post it online, or keep to AI websites like CivitAI to post images. And be honest about the resources used, don't claim it as something you've truly made.
rshini
and ffs don't use it for commercial/paid stuff.
sabrinadiesatdawn
If generative AI had been developed ethically, it would be so primitive, not even the most over-hyping tech bro ever would be talking about it
Dagordae
So if it was developed in such a way that made it all but useless for the things you want it to do? The only reason it can generate those funny pictures is because of the VAST amount of images fed into it. Locking it into a much smaller pool, like massively smaller, means it would suck at those things.
aguacatedeldiablo
Ethics and capitalism are in direct opposition.
sfrinlan
"If only X had been developed ethically instead of as profitably as possible, then we wouldn't have such trouble with X and it would instead be a celebrated human creation". Where X is basically anything. Sure, it's a fun thought experiment, but there's a reason it's only fantasy and the problem is systemically pervasive.
ashedeveloper
Very well put
alsoAzrael
el problema es el capitalismo?
sfrinlan
sirava
But you don't understand. That's not as profitable. In fact finding cancer early deprives the system of a lot of potential profit.
WeAllLiveInAUserSubmarine
"Oryx and Crake", by Margaret Atwood.
SarcasticCant
American? Keep in mind most other countries don't think like this
sirava
Yet. If you have good socialized healthcare be sure to guard it from those who want to privatize it.
LaffertyDanie1
Well depends, you're right for doctors/hospitals/cancer clinics but it's the opposite for insurance companies and the government who I'd argue have more power. I think the reason we haven't seen things like this rolled out more is that AI is still latent, fuck up like put 6 fingers on a hand in an image nbd but fuck up and give false cancer results the stakes are a bit higher.
Tychoxic
Uh...why is no one commenting on the obvious and most likely initial motive? Profit probably wasn't it. A reason to collect a vast number of images of breasts was motivated by...what now? "No, no...this is um...medical research...do you want the terrorists I mean CANCER to win? Do those people walking for a cure mean NOTHING to you?!"
hothotsoup
Find an insurance company that is also a hospital like Kaiser Permanente. All preventative care is free because it saves them a lot of money to NOT have to pay for your care longterm.
Ionico
Absolutely true, and if you think (not you, just in general) that pharma really wants to cure thr golden goose of it's golden eggs....
OppaGangnamPyle
But the efficacy is astounding and would garner a considerable price.
firefighter26
Hear me out. We let AI drastically reduce cancer rates through early detection and mitigation, then repurpose all the now available doctor-hours, hospital and clinic space towards the obesity, opioid and/or mental health epidemics.
[deleted]
[deleted]
brazzy42
Bullshit. Details: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22770/has-the-cure-to-cancer-been-hidden-by-pharmaceutical-companies
Lovingimpaler
Um, yeah, i didn't say they have, and that's a big difference. My point is simply that given the chance, they're not above taking profit of the status quo over patient welfare imrovements. I.e., some big pharma execs have no regard whatsoever for patient outcomes over money.
Dagordae
You do realize that the company that invents a blanket cure will make approximately all of the money forever, right? They win the grand competition the entire industry is in. They will no longer have to settle for a piece of the pie, they will grab the entire damn thing and can charge whatever they want for it.
Dagordae
Frankly the people talking about a cure for cancer just illustrate that they fundamentally don’t know what cancer is.
We have cures for cancer, we have vaccines for cancer. There’s a LOT of different forms and causes of cancer, a universal cure is basically the ability to tell someone’s cells to stop mutating and work properly. Which, well, at that point they also have straight up immortality on tap. That level of biological control is frankly absurd, curing cancer is the least of it.
veesee
Spoken like a true American
sirava
Guilty. If you have good socialized healthcare be sure to guard it from those who want to privatize it.
veesee
I'm sorry your country doesn't see the value in it.
WhatSayYouCitizen
this is so wrong-headed it's nearly crazy
Goldensands
It's called capitalism
Kim8them
You can't go 5 seconds online without coming across a conspiracy theorist at the moment, it's driving me crazy. I think it's funded by big psychiatry.
sirava
I agree. We shouldn't have an economic system that prefers people to suffer.
SirBonSama
but if we did that, how could the 1% ever afford their seven super yachts for the seven seas?
Aurentis
It is a measurable fact that there is more profit to be had in managing a problem than in eliminating it.
It's not the doctors that want people to stay sick, but the corporations are definitely aware that for every ounce of prevention they mothball they can sell a pound of cure.
It's also not universal. For-profit medicine is just a thumb on the scale. Problems still get solved, of course. But when it's time to budget R&D and you've got a choice between repeat custom or single sale? Easy math.
dudeloveall
But is it factually incorrect?
WhatSayYouCitizen
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti">6688/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8946688/
https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/EDBK_350652
sirava
I'm not denying AI is being using by prevention, especially by countries with better health systems than the US. Revilo314 correctly pointed out I should have said the American healthcare system above, but that doesn't chance my tongue-in-cheek point that a for-profit system such as we have in the US is much less incentivized to prioritize preventative care. Cancer drugs are more profitable than cancer screening.
corticalstack
The cost to run chat GPT and services like it are currently being soaked by venture capitalist firms and billionaires. The moment that stops, so will the cancer screenings for anyone who doesn't pay the premium for the service
ByThePowerOfSCIENCE
It is. Researchers don't get paid per sick patient, and many lives and lots of resources are dedicated to prevention and early detection as in this post.
UsernamesAreStupidAnyways
That - while true - literally has nothing to do with whether it's more profitable for the health-care *industry*¹ to have patients need to use their services for longer.²
¹as in: the (board/business-side of) private hospitals², insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies.
²note that I'm talking about the people profiting *from* the industry here. Not the doctors, researchers, nurses, techs, etc. that work *in* the industry and really do want the best for patients.
UsernamesAreStupidAnyways
(Addendum: this obviously isn't the case globally. But it's fairly clear in systems like the US, that, if *curing* a thing would make less money than treating it, they more often than not have to beg for handouts to work on it. )
revilo314
Yes, because socialised healthcare systems prioritise prevention over treatment because it maximises health and QoL benefit per cost.
keraos
I'm pretty sure that they weren't talking about healthy functioning socialized systems though, but the wretched for -profit American healthcare system. You're absolutely right for countries that care about people, but America makes it abundantly clear it's about profit.
I really really hope we can get to a point where it's factually incorrect, but I worked in insurance for years and heard specific conversations about extending/delaying care to maximize profit. Our system is fucked.
WhatSayYouCitizen
Yes, it's factually incorrect. This is as much a conspiracy theory as "we didn't land on the moon" or "the Earth is flat"; most because they are in use.
AI systems aren't the primary means of detection because humans still want a human hand on the wheel. They ARE used in (limited) cases for assisting with diagnostics and detection, but a human doctor still makes a final call.
ThinkingAG
But the hospital gets the profit earlier (though it is less total revenue per patient). Besides, the surgery team makes almost as much taking out a tiny tumor as a large one.
When has big business looked further than this quarter? Take out all the tumors they can find and when there are none left, all the hospital execs will have gotten a mountain of bonuses and retired.
Leithoa
Most hospitals operate at a loss. Pharma companies are the ones turning a profit on suffering.
ThinkingAG
Hospitals operate at a loss, doctors and hospital network CEOs do not.
Leithoa
Most Dr.s aren't getting kickbacks they bust their asses and get paid adoringly
Leithoa
*accordingly
ThinkingAG
Pharma companies make most of their money early on in the life of a drug, while it is still under patent and competitors haven't come up with a drug that is legally distinct. There is not much value in leaving a disease untreated. Big pharma wants to sell you a big, expensive treatment, take the money and reinvest it into the next drug, and get you on that drug. If there was a cure for cancer, the Alzheimer's drug makers would bring it to market.
inlovewiththecoco
The one flaw with this logic: different companies are doing different things. You know how much money is in for a company who cures cancer??? All the money. The system doesn't all work together as a team, they're all rivals
dirtcreature
This is not the place for people using reason to comprehend that capitalism (competition) has produced every.single.advancement in humanity, let alone all the speciation on Earth.
donajello
Congratulations! You posted the stupidest thing I've read all week!
dirtcreature
Thanks
rdmage11
Nobody tell them about insulin, or any number of advancements made because of people wanting to understand.
moonshadowkati
Capitalism isn't synonymous with competition. "Capitalism is an economic system where private individuals or organizations own the means of production, and the free market determines prices, products, and the distribution of goods."
dirtcreature
Start your own business, then give me this definition
hairytrigga
War is what has helped Humanity advance not capitalism. Our unrivaled ability to create new technologies to kill has advanced us faster and further than capitalism ever could. 42yrs after the first plane flew we were dropping nukes from them, 24yrs after that we had the moon landing.
dirtcreature
Arguably, all resource acquisition, or competition thereof, involves the financial incentive to solve the problem. Humanity is either jealous, afraid, or addicted.
HypersonicHero
Oh yay, that conspiracy theory that doctors prefer patients who are sick then to heal them. How about go get your MD, then do residency, then go become an attending physician and find out how ridiculous that theory is.
Zapander
I was basically digging to find this kind of comment - what cheap ridiculousness!
Harmful rhetoric.
One thing we can trust of scientists such as ourselves, is there will always be those among us whose curiosity, talent, and knowledge point them to discovery until they reveal some grand new understanding or mechanism with which we can interact with the universe. Our curiosity drove us to our great nuclear bombs, and insurance can't contain such a force.
We might even cure all cancers 1 day!
sirava
I did just toss that off as a smartass comment not expecting to get traction but I stand by it. In what passes for healthcare in America, doctors and other front-line people are largely doing their best. As are hospitals generally. But having a for-profit system means the incentives are messed up. It's not some grand conspiracy, just a system with the wrong priorities. My doctor has less to do with my treatment options than my insurance company and bank account balance.
FormalWareBytes
Insurance would profit from earlier detection, doctors and hospitals would not. I encourage you to look at the (un)profitability of hospital systems compared to insurance companies. Pretty easy to spot the real villain in our system
HypersonicHero
Only a small percentage of doctors are oncologists and/or in cancer treatment. So the benefit is hardly field wide. And this argument reeks of the same oversimplification as my aunt who says "more carbon dioxide is good for crops!" When climate change comes up.
revilo314
Almost every country apart from the failed post-colonial nation in the north of the Americas does not have a healthcare system where this would be an issue. Please try to remember that the universe extends outside the US borders.
7YearsALurker
U.S? Americans:
RunningInSpaces
Wtf are u bringing Canada into it for?
MirroredImage
Shhhhh. In attempting to deride strangers over geography, they've completely forgotten their geography.
I'm also loving "failed post-colonial," because it just sounds like they're really mad we're not british
revilo314
The US is in the North of the Americas. Is this a controversial point?
I said "failed post-colonial" because more so than many other post-colonial nations, including the ones that experienced genocide, the US is socially, economically and culturally spiralling the drain.
WhatSayYouCitizen
lol
sirava
Fair point, I should have said "the American healthcare system" but those of you with functioning ones shouldn't be complacent. There are groups trying to privatize them constantly.
Littledirtybirdyfeet
Hey, that just means medical tourism will increase if some countries can reliably screen for cancer
revilo314
That is also a fair point.
ontarioOT
Yup, our idiot Premier thinks that privatizing is the way to go. It's not.
ErudiousRex
Hey... don't hate US cuz you ain't US... I bet you WISH you had our deductables... and co-pays... and pre-existing illnesses that our new insurance won't pay for.
ZKintzer
Since the ACA, insurance can't charge more, or deny coverage for pre-existing conditions in the US...... For now
humblewordsmith
They just charge everyone more...
deadlyJumper
I'd rather everyone have to pay a tiny bit more than the few have to pay crippling costs. Same as with taxes, we only ask everyone pay a fair share because then everyone gets covered and no one is crushed by the burden.