8 ms·
Google Says Its Med-Gemini AI Healthcare Models Beat GPT-4
- xvector 2y agoIMO if anything will get us to longevity escape velocity, it's AI. This is why I'm so fundamentally against the anti AI folk. Their jobs simply are not worth the chance that we can evolve this into AGI and achieve escape velocity, saving billions of lives.
- firechickenbird 2y agoIf we save billions there will be no space for other people
- anonzzzies 2y agoSpace. If AI is smart enough for saving billions of lives, it will also give us more effective energy and space flight.
- ctz 2y agoAlso unlimited ponies and puppies for everyone!
- ben_w 2y agoYou joke, but sure, why not.
- croes 2y agoWhy? Just because you find one solution doesn't mean you find another one too.
- anonzzzies 2y agoSure, it might also figure out energy before longevity or neither of them. I think what we are looking for is the vague ‘AGI’ goal and that, by its (vague) definition , is capable of finding multiple solutions to many problems.
- croes 2y agoIf solutions exist and if those solutions don't create other problems. What's the solution to conflicts like in the Middle East or Ukraine?
- anonzzzies 2y agoSolutions clearly exist for managing diseases (we keep finding ways to give years to cancers that were an instant death sentence just 15-20 years ago); I have no clue if they exist for making us 180 in good health; I am not that smart. And space flight is also solvable if energy is solvable and that also seems possible, but again, I am not smart enough otherwise I would be in that business. Human conflict is solvable in a simple way; just eradicate us all. That solves all but longevity anyway for some definition of solve. But seriously speaking; if a human had a solution for these conflicts, they wouldn’t be there so either a solution without peril to humans is not there or we are too dumb to come up with one and need a 400 point iq increase to do so. I am not saying AI will ever do it but so far it seems to be the our only hope. Then again, it’s only been a few 1000 years of modern human so we might figure it out without finding AGI. Anyway, currently this is more ‘religion’ (aka hope) than science on my side; there is no clear sign agi or super intelligence will happen soon; I am now more deadly afraid of ‘intelligence-ish simulators’ (LLMs) used everywhere to replace people and making everything vastly worse for almost everyone. Which is what’s happening at the moment.
- croes 2y agoCancer doesn't kill instant, and after we found a cure for one disease another one rises. Just look at Candida auris
- ben_w 2y agoLongevity is neither necessary nor required for "running out of space". If the mean person has more than 2 kids, the population grows until it can't, no matter how long or short our lives. If we cure aging and all disease, our half-life due to accidents and homicide is (currently) somewhere around 1000 years — the same "2 kids" rule applies.
- maxehmookau 2y agoI really hope I die of something natural, quietly, in my sleep at a reasonable age instead of a freak accident or being murdered.
- xvector 2y agoI would much rather spend another 900+ years with my loved ones (or however long I want) rather than being forced to die so ridiculously early. Put another way: if you knew for a fact that you would get murdered 40 years from now, would you choose end it all via peaceful lethal injection today? I very much doubt it. For every person dying "peacefully" on their deathbed, truly happy to succumb to death, there are 1000 more people that would do anything in their final moments to physically reset to the age of 20. Also, think bigger - if technology continues to progress, we won't be biological a few hundred years from now. We'll be digitized, each consciousness likely spanning multiple redundant nodes throughout the planet or solar system. So these freak accidents are not relevant - nothing short of a cosmic event would kill you. It's highly unlikely that you'll die before whenever you choose to die - our lives would be indefinite for all practical purposes. --- Edit because of the ridiculous HN rate limit: > The "short" life span is one reason we take risks. No, it's why you take risks. I'm happy to take risks - the fact that I'll die one day has no bearing on, say, my decision to go paragliding this weekend, or to push hard for a promo. Risk does not necessarily arise out of the certainty of death, it can arise out of any number of other factors. > I bet we would get a dystopia with long living dicators and short living peasants. People have said this about most therapies historically but this has never come to pass. Anyways, why throw up your hands and give up immediately? That attitude never got our species anywhere. > Altered Carbon style, eh? Cool, sign me up for a cortical stack. A bit more clever than that :) Individual consciousnesses could be distributed to avoid death from a single cortical stack being crushed.
- HDThoreaun 2y agotheres plenty of space
- anonzzzies 2y agoI feel the same, and not only for medicine. But like always, we have to be careful to not land in dystopia first and we are barreling toward that rather fast. Internet and fake news was bad before gpt, now it’s spiralling into a nightmare. Bad ‘support’ was bad before gpt, now I often feel that I am in some sort of different universe with companies simply not caring if their support ‘bots’ tell nonsense or keep going in circles; as long as it’s cheap! So yes, full speed ai, no neutering, but we need laws against profit-at-all-cost (I mean, why is a for-profit company, even if their income is ads, not by law required to provide human support within x hours or get fined? Reasonable I would say) or actual UBI soon otherwise longevity is the last thing you want as you will be living in pure hell; most of the population not being able to pay for anything, enslaved by AIs and the healthcare AIs trying to minimise cost even more effectively than US insurers. I don’t want to live in that world and we are not that far from it.
- gagagaga7 2y agoPeople die at age 75-90 for a reason. Its what nature intends. Longevity for the elderly is not intrinsically moral.
- anonzzzies 2y agoIt should be a choice. I think it should be a choice from when you turn 25 or something.
- xvector 2y agoLongevity escape velocity implies de-aging therapies. Longevity with increased healthspan for the elderly is definitely moral. --- Edit because of HN rate limit: > So dictators live 1000 years instead of 100? That's moral to you? Grandma gets to live to 1000 years too, as do my other loved ones, so sure.
- croes 2y agoSo dictators live 1000 years instead of 100? That's moral to you?
- jstummbillig 2y ago1) Nature intends nothing. There is no reason, in any logical sense. 2) If nature actually intended anything (again, it doesn't), it would also intend killing most of your children before they are 5. Using medicine to keep infants alive is just about as unnatural as extending our life span towards the end. In terms of morality, doing the later in a way that also keeps up quality of life is obviously important, but nothing that we can not chip away at, just as we did with child mortality.
- ben_w 2y agoNature is red in tooth and claw, it doesn't care about us. I also find it curious how many people continue to appeal to nature, while tapping a finger against a sheet of synthetic sapphire or glass that protects a delicate sheet of semiconductors, themselves made to glow by minerals taken from all over the world refined in complex chemical processes, and that glow guided by an unnaturally pure crystal of silicon cut and marked in ways too small to be perceived with any natural vision, in order to create a set of glyphs which silently convey meaning to others worldwide via a network of similar devices intermediated by space lasers and a planet spanning grid of cables laid at the bottom of the world's oceans. Nature gave us our lifespan for the same reason it gave wolves a decade, the same reason it has elephants starve to death when their final set of teeth fail, and the same reason it made octopods go into a self destructive death spiral as soon as the eggs have been laid.
- croes 2y agoWhy should a AGI save billions of lives?
- ben_w 2y agoBecause we told it to. I don't know which of various meanings you ascribe to "AGI", but the most general sense has no implications beyond the initials: is it artificial, is it "intelligent" (and that in the Turing or Dijkstra senses of what can it do not is it really thinking), and is that intelligence "general purpose".
- netdevnet 2y agoSurely, if it is AGI it won't do stuff just because it is * told * to same way you as a company don't do exactly what your customer *tells* you to do but what you *think* it *wants or needs*. So I expect AGI to do stuff we might not understand but further in the future we will look back with enough hindsight and we will understand why it did what it did and we will agree that it was the best action to take at that time. Just like children lacking understanding of why their parents tell them to eat bland veggies or do stuff they don't want to do even though it is good for them in the long-term. I expect this to be the main source of conflicts with AGI in the future.
- ben_w 2y agoThat sounds like the principal–agent problem and Coherent Extrapolated Volition? • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_artificial_intelligence#Coherent_extrapolated_volition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_artificial_intelligen...
- croes 2y agoWho is we? There will always be someone who asks "How to kill billions"
- ben_w 2y ago
- otabdeveloper4 2y agoThere is no "longevity escape velocity", please stop reading sci-fi. (Or at least if you do, keep in mind it is only entertainment.)
- ben_w 2y ago"[Everything] always seems impossible until it's done" - Nelson Mandela There's no longevity escape velocity yet. But when I was a kid, there was no cloning of mammals, no Google Translate real time video mode on a device you could carry, and the best chatbots were ELIZA clones.
- otabdeveloper4 2y agoThat's a stupid argument because it also applies to anything from faster-than-light travel to Harry Potter's magic wand.
- ben_w 2y agoBy itself, sure, it's a fully general counterargument. My point is: saying "There is no ${X}, please stop reading sci-fi" is also a bad argument, because it's also a fully general counterargument. The idea is not crazy-wrong, it's a falsifiable hypothetical with not-unreasonable foundations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity_escape_velocity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity_escape_velocity
- ben_w 2y agoThe "anti AI folk" covers a huge range of different things, for different reasons, with different timescales and concerns. I feel sympathetic towards all of these groups, even the ones whose jobs will disappear. I felt sympathetic towards truck drivers 15 years ago, as I was expecting self-driving to arrive before 2019. That aspect of AI alone may well lead to a re-run of "workers who felt their livelihood threatened by automation flung their wooden shoes called sabots into the machines to stop them. Hence the word 'sabotage.'"[0] — and while AI communism could be better or much worse than industrial communism, I'm fairly sure that Overthrowing The Government While Angry is more likely to lead to a bad outcome than a good one. There are also "anti AI folk" who fear various kinds of dystopia; the stuff in this thread being amongst the options, but also "tiling the universe with smiley faces", and (please excuse fictional references, take the core ideas but don't take them too literally): The Matrix; Westworld; "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream"; and every story about an evil genie granting the wish you actually made rather the one you meant. [0] Star Trek, not sure how much artistic licence they took with that etymology, though the point remains valid in the form of luddites and literal Marx' literal Manifesto.
- peteradio 2y agoYou think longevity would apply to the masses? That is blind man naive.
- xvector 2y agoThis has been said about most absurdly expensive therapies that are now cheap: monoclonal antibodies, gene therapy, stem cell therapy, robotic surgery, proton beam therapy. The evidence is not on your side.
- peteradio 2y agoYou mean copes for our modern ills during a time where humans still provide value?
- engineercodex 2y agoWe all know this isn’t replacing doctors. We do know that when applied correctly, this will assist doctors and other clinical specialists in their work. With doctor burnout at all time highs, I think stuff like this is amazing.
- david-gpu 2y ago> We all know this isn’t replacing doctors. We do know that when applied correctly, this will assist doctors and other clinical specialists in their work. Let's say a clinic currently has eleven doctors and is able to treat X number of patients per week. Let's say one of them retires, and instead of finding a human replacement, the remaining ten doctors choose an AI clinical assistant to free up 10% of their workload. Now it only takes ten AI-assisted doctors to continue serving the same number of patients as eleven doctors used to do. This is just an example to show that there is no meaningful difference between "assisting" and "replacing". Any time an assistant, AI or not, takes some workload off somebody's plate, they have partially replaced them, and it adds up.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rembicilious 2y agoExcept there aren’t enough doctors in many places. Also physician performance varies widely. So really this won’t replace doctors, but hopefully patient care will be affected positively. Doctors aren’t always brilliant outside their field and AI “assistance” can turn out to be a clever troll sometimes.
- thejohnconway 2y agoYeah, I see this "not replacing, assisting" argument all the time, and it just doesn't work. If you can do more with fewer people, fewer people will be employed for the same task. In the past, nearly everyone was a farmer. We're not all farmers with, like, really easy jobs now because the machines do the boring bits. No, there are far fewer farmers.
- 2y ago
- belter 2y agoPlease update the title to the correct one: "Google Says Its Med-Gemini AI Healthcare Models Beat GPT-4" Looking at their past shenanigans "Google Says..." makes it mean a whole different thing...
- biscuit1v9 2y agoMy bad.. EDIT: how do I do that on title? Kind of new to editing on posts :D
- thunderbong 2y agoClick on your username, go to the submissions link at the bottom, click edit on sodic post. You can only update within a certain amount of time!
- biscuit1v9 2y agoSadly I don't see the "edit" button anymore. Probably the time passed. Will take in consideration in the future about the mislead title.
- dang 2y agoUpdated now. No worries!
- zarzavat 2y agoI’m excited for this application of AI, because in many lower-income countries doctors are not trained particularly well and people do not have access to a western standard of diagnosis. Being able to have a consultation with an AI doctor who is more knowledgeable and accurate than local doctors would be life changing for millions, if that comes to pass.
- RomanAlexander 2y agoI'm waiting for the calls of adding TCM or other "regional medicines" as training data.
- cyclecount 2y ago..according to Google. They have a track record of over-promising and then delivering something functionally worse than OpenAI.
- xnx 2y agoThread from one of the researchers: https://twitter.com/alan_karthi/status/1785117444383588823 https://twitter.com/alan_karthi/status/1785117444383588823