4 ms·

> However, deep learning has shown that these algorithms demonstrate capability in tasks which were not previously thought possible. Harnessing this power, new

by tqi 4y ago

> However, deep learning has shown that these algorithms demonstrate capability in tasks which were not previously thought possible. Harnessing this power, new insights into relationships between retinal structure and systemic pathophysiology could expand existing knowledge of disease mechanisms... Here, the physiologic cause and effect relationships are not readily apparent to domain experts21. Interesting. I'm curious to learn how a black box model help expand existing knowledge of disease mechanisms? It seems to me that doing so would require the ability to determine what the predictive indicators the model is using are.

hamandcheese 4y ago
> I'm curious to learn how a black box model help expand existing knowledge of disease mechanisms? Even knowing that there is a predictive indicator is valuable, as it can guide future efforts. Even with no other clues, I suspect that researchers will discover the indicators much faster than they otherwise would merely because it is proven to be possible. Knowing something is possible has a powerful psychological impact.
naijaboiler 4y ago
Finding novel relationships gives us news places to look to try to understand how things are. I didn't know you you could tell gender from retina. If indeed we can, that leaves room to then all why is that biologically happening. We don't be the black box AI to explain. If it read a signal there, it's up to use user other methods to figure why that signal exists and what the implications are to our current understanding
- legostormtroopr 4y ago
  > I didn't know you you could tell gender from retina. This is determining sex from retinal scans - not gender. Thats what makes this interesting, and potentially inflammatory, because it highlights even further subtle physiological differences between the two majority human sexes.
  - EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago
  - bawolff 4y ago
    How do you know? I didn't see anything in the experimental design that would distinguish between detecting sex vs gender. Sex and gender are fairly highly correlated and it doesn't look like they did any analysis to rule out that they weren't actually detecting gender and not sex. Of course that would be a much more surprising result. That said, i don't think subtle physiological differences are really that inflamatory. For example, we already accept that men are more likely to be colour blind and a myrid of other minor differences. Usually these things are only controversial when someone posits a major physiological difference and then mostly because much of the time its someone with an axe to grind significantly overstating the evidence.

by tqi 4y ago

hamandcheese 4y ago

> I'm curious to learn how a black box model help expand existing knowledge of disease mechanisms? Even knowing that there is a predictive indicator is valuable, as it can guide future efforts. Even with no other clues, I suspect that researchers will discover the indicators much faster than they otherwise would merely because it is proven to be possible. Knowing something is possible has a powerful psychological impact.

naijaboiler 4y ago

Finding novel relationships gives us news places to look to try to understand how things are. I didn't know you you could tell gender from retina. If indeed we can, that leaves room to then all why is that biologically happening. We don't be the black box AI to explain. If it read a signal there, it's up to use user other methods to figure why that signal exists and what the implications are to our current understanding

legostormtroopr 4y ago
> I didn't know you you could tell gender from retina. This is determining sex from retinal scans - not gender. Thats what makes this interesting, and potentially inflammatory, because it highlights even further subtle physiological differences between the two majority human sexes.
- EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago
- bawolff 4y ago
  How do you know? I didn't see anything in the experimental design that would distinguish between detecting sex vs gender. Sex and gender are fairly highly correlated and it doesn't look like they did any analysis to rule out that they weren't actually detecting gender and not sex. Of course that would be a much more surprising result. That said, i don't think subtle physiological differences are really that inflamatory. For example, we already accept that men are more likely to be colour blind and a myrid of other minor differences. Usually these things are only controversial when someone posits a major physiological difference and then mostly because much of the time its someone with an axe to grind significantly overstating the evidence.