3 ms·
Not on the sidelines, I’m on the field. That’s why I’m glad to see the reality finally getting attention. As the article says, a lot of healthcare professionals
by code4tee 8y ago
Not on the sidelines, I’m on the field. That’s why I’m glad to see the reality finally getting attention. As the article says, a lot of healthcare professionals that once were onboard have distanced themselves from IBM and these projects.
- TheCondor 8y agoSo is there a better oncologist’s assistant AI out there? Or is the sweet spot somewhere between picking music you’ll like, suggesting when you should leave for an appointment to manage traffic and playing chess or go? I understand the dislike of the marketing, but something like Watson in medicine is a moonshot attempt. Can CNNs and whatever other stuff Watson has available to it simply not handle cancer? Or is it broken? Or is the literature and training data bad or there just isn’t enough of it? I’m really fascinated by the stories of it giving detrimental treatment suggestions, I could see it happening a couple times and word getting out (like a new file system corrupting data) but if that’s really normal then something is broken, right? Maybe it’s misunderstanding the training literature, which should be a correctable software bug. I’m just guessing.
- code4tee 8y agoThere’s nothing inherently wrong with the technology. However, doing ML well isn’t really about the ML as much as it’s about getting everything leading up to the ML right. That’s the difference between value-add applications of ML and an expensive mess. IBM didn’t understand that and hence the mess they’re in now with Watson.
- notzuck 8y ago"IBM didn’t understand that" Can you explain a little further?