3 ms·
> But in science we need observable evidence. The observable evidence here is the raw x-ray data. Based on the article, what is being done here was using ML to
by StableAlkyne 2y ago
> But in science we need observable evidence.
The observable evidence here is the raw x-ray data. Based on the article, what is being done here was using ML to process that X-ray data, to create another set of output that the humans could analyze.
I understand jumping on the anti-AI bandwagon, but this ain't ChatGPT. Using ML to process complex instrument output has been used since at least the 70s. This is much closer to statistics based approaches than it is to some random startup trying to sell your manager on some snake oil AI-assisted whatever.
I don't know your background, so I'm sorry if I'm assuming anything. Any chance you articulate what specifically you don't like about the method they used to process the data, other than "It's ML?"
- mmooss 2y ago> I understand jumping on the anti-AI bandwagon Why be an asshole? What do you accomplish? I now have zero interest in what you have to say. I stopped there.
- StableAlkyne 2y agoNo animosity was meant there, friend. Completely above board, I get that a lot of people see "ML" and jump to conclusions given the hype around "AI" in the last couple of years.
- mmooss 2y ago> No animosity was meant there Lol. That only supports my original assessment. Bye!