5 ms·

Isn't Watson known to be somewhat snake-oily? I don't think it's reasonable to transfer assessments based on Watson to Deepmind or any other organization.

• quickben 9y ago
  Assuming Watson is "snake-oily" (Chess and TV demos aside), I don't see anybody else on the planet, let alone that startup Google bought, solving this one without people dying from misdiagnosis. I'll write two things here, and let you derive further your own conclusions: 1. From the DeepMind's top people, in 2013: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-09165-5_4 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-09165-... "Investigating the Limits of Monte-Carlo Tree Search Methods in Computer Go". 2. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/03/google-deepmind-16m-patient-royal-free-deal-data-protection-act https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/03/google-de...
  • visarga 9y ago
    > solving this one without people dying from misdiagnosis Why would that be the best metric. I'd prefer "overall minimization of death and sickness", not the "no mistakes allowed for DeepMind" as if doctors don't make lots of mistakes that cost human life.
    • killjoywashere 9y ago
      Death is a thing that happens in hospitals. Anything that leads to less deaths is better.
  • b4lancesh33t 9y ago
    "no adverse effects at all" is not a standard most experimental protocols are held to.