4 ms·
Agreed 100%. It's absurd. The results get distilled as "more data leads to worse outcomes" and that's ridiculous -- it should be: "more data leads to bad dec
by nlh 4y ago
Agreed 100%. It's absurd. The results get distilled as "more data leads to worse outcomes" and that's ridiculous -- it should be: "more data leads to bad decisions which lead to worse outcomes". We should ALWAYS strive to have more and better data. What needs to change is how we (and our doctors) respond to that data.
- Bud 4y ago[dead]
- jwestbury 4y agoWhilst I agree in theory -- in practice, humans are prone to misreading data. We have to build our systems to accommodate human flaws, as engineering away human flaws is much, much harder, and potentially impossible.
- im3w1l 4y agoHuman culture is constantly evolving, it's a mistake to assume that the flaws of today must remain so tomorrow. There is also AI to consider.
- trgn 4y agoThat's just saying the same thing as the article. But instead of reconsidering the premise, this is just doubling down on it. > We should ALWAYS strive to have more and better data. If you value data in and of itself, in other words if data is an a priori good, then this is a fetish.