3 ms·
Yes, so as usual it's so superior but it's never used. And the people building it say it's stellar, promise! Here's a clue: instead of building a tool, and try
by rscho 2y ago
Yes, so as usual it's so superior but it's never used. And the people building it say it's stellar, promise! Here's a clue: instead of building a tool, and try teaching people already practicing how and why they should use it, maybe we could actually go see what practitioners are doing and try to integrate into that without requiring 30 additional mouse clicks and the use of a new soft that nobody understands ?
- whimsicalism 2y agoYou can find the studies on the recent melanoma classifiers. There are tons showing in various settings that they pretty clearly outperform physicians. If 'additional mouse clicks' is a major barrier to physicians using a tool that leads to far better diagnosis outcomes of a fast-progressing and deadly disease, I'm not sure why that is an argument for why things should continue to be as physician-gated as they are. I will happily perform the 30 extra clicks myself if it is my potential melanoma. But if I were to offer it as a self-serve app ($2 for melanoma diagnoses too cheap to meter), I would be thrown in jail.
- rscho 2y agoYes, we have so many models that completely outclass docs. It's really strange, they're not more widely available don't you think ? Providing so much value, one would think there would be a black market for those, at this point. Or maybe, just maybe, the setting necessary to make things work in large-scale realistic practice is more difficult than what the paper authors would have you believe? No, they would never do that...
- whimsicalism 2y agoI'm being very specific about melanoma because this is one of the cases with very compelling evidence. You can broaden the discussion if you want - but that is not what I'm discussing. Here's a study of this technology with 67k real-life practitioners showing obvious increases in accuracy. [0] Apologies if the link to that article is one mouse click too many for you. [0]: https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2024/04/ai-skin-diagnosis.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2024/04/ai-skin-diagn...
- rscho 2y agoI never denied the performance. Now make it usable to the average doc. That's where we disagree. You believe it's usable, but you've never seen clinicians handle computer stuff.
- CamperBob2 2y agoIt would be usable to anyone with a smartphone, in a world not controlled by self-interested gatekeepers and their well-paid lobbyists.
- whimsicalism 2y agoexactly… this is tech that could be used by literally anyone if it were legal but I am supposed to believe it is just too difficult to bring into practice
- rscho 2y agoI doubt that measurements outside a standardized environment would grant satisfactory performance. But, perhaps. I don't know. You're just too sour, man. I'm not saying it won't work, not even saying with certainty it doesn't work now. I'm not refuting protectionism plays a role either. What I'm saying is just that clinical integration of new tech, especially involving computers, is much more difficult than you seem to believe. And that the primary reason for that is not the greed of docs, which in my experience holds far less political influence than you think. I'm all for new tech, so chill out a bit.