3 ms·

There is a principle in medicine that you need to demonstrate efficacy first, before taking further risks at the potential expense of the public. Advancing the

There is a principle in medicine that you need to demonstrate efficacy first, before taking further risks at the potential expense of the public. Advancing the tech sounds good on paper, but the cost is unknown and the benefits unclear at best. “Someday it’ll be great” isn’t an argument for your government giving Google private information.

joe_the_user 9y ago
There is a principle in medicine that you need to demonstrate efficacy first, before taking further risks at the potential expense of the public. This is a key point. It should be noted that health care systems and credit bureaus have in common the ability to accumulate information people without those people effectively having choice. Thus it's especially important to have controls and "hand wringing" that a company is just taking data without the destination or use being evident is entirely appropriate.
- ghufran_syed 9y ago
  Would the same be true for the manual version of the same procedure I outlined? If so, what are the risks you are concerned about? If not, why would the computerized version be different?
  - joe_the_user 9y ago
    Of course it's true that a manual version of google/deep-mind should involve informed consent for data being given to a third party - and should also be tested for its effectiveness. The large group of clerks you describe seems like it could leak a lot of data, just for example. The thing is neither the Google algorithm nor your idea have proven effectiveness. The "obviously it would improve things so worries over implementation and data control are hand wringing" attitude seems to neglect the fact that all sorts of apparently logical steps actually have turned out to not do the good people expected (Cholesterol drugs being a good example, yes they lower cholesterol, no they don't improve life expectancy, etc)- and also that a good program should be implementable with good data controls, there no reason to frame this as a trade-off.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- QAPereo 9y ago
  Even worse, if the public comes to associate ML in medicine with shady dealings and lost privacy, then adoption of proven tech will be delayed or stopped. The ethical constraints around medicine exist for good reasons, and shortcuts can cost lives in innumerable ways.

joe_the_user 9y ago

There is a principle in medicine that you need to demonstrate efficacy first, before taking further risks at the potential expense of the public. This is a key point. It should be noted that health care systems and credit bureaus have in common the ability to accumulate information people without those people effectively having choice. Thus it's especially important to have controls and "hand wringing" that a company is just taking data without the destination or use being evident is entirely appropriate.

ghufran_syed 9y ago
Would the same be true for the manual version of the same procedure I outlined? If so, what are the risks you are concerned about? If not, why would the computerized version be different?
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  Of course it's true that a manual version of google/deep-mind should involve informed consent for data being given to a third party - and should also be tested for its effectiveness. The large group of clerks you describe seems like it could leak a lot of data, just for example. The thing is neither the Google algorithm nor your idea have proven effectiveness. The "obviously it would improve things so worries over implementation and data control are hand wringing" attitude seems to neglect the fact that all sorts of apparently logical steps actually have turned out to not do the good people expected (Cholesterol drugs being a good example, yes they lower cholesterol, no they don't improve life expectancy, etc)- and also that a good program should be implementable with good data controls, there no reason to frame this as a trade-off.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
QAPereo 9y ago
Even worse, if the public comes to associate ML in medicine with shady dealings and lost privacy, then adoption of proven tech will be delayed or stopped. The ethical constraints around medicine exist for good reasons, and shortcuts can cost lives in innumerable ways.