4 ms·

my EXPLICIT SOURCE was 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003429 do you require other ones, or do you wanna keep harping on the fact i used LLM as a fucking search engine?

my EXPLICIT SOURCE was 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003429 do you require other ones, or do you wanna keep harping on the fact i used LLM as a fucking search engine? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2779987 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2779987 3.5 per 10,000 take it up with JAMA and the AJG. do you do SCREENING or DIAGNOSTIC/POLYP REMOVAL? because there's a difference. And it has nothing to do whether i use google.com or chat.whatever.com to find that out.

bonsai_spool 5mo ago
> do you wanna keep harping on the fact i used LLM as a fucking search engine? You didn't give me a source before now, so I unfortunately had no other source to challenge except the LLM! > https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2779987 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2779987 3.5 per 10,000 Different source, friend. Please note that they say 3.1, not 3.5. That is at about 25% less than 4 (and even less than 5, let alone your previous assertions). And if either you or your LLM troubled yourself to read the article, even this is a confounded number in that we cannot determine whether low-volume, 'community' operators are worse than high-volume settings. > do you do SCREENING or DIAGNOSTIC/POLYP REMOVAL? We are talking about screening—once you have a target to remove, you are looking at a high-likelihood-of-cancer population. I am fully aware of this, so I don't understand why you are bringing up this difference which has not yet figured into our discussion. Is this something your LLM suggested to you? --- I think the thing to take away is that LLMs do not yet replace human understanding and discretion.
- genewitch 4mo ago
  we're both being jerks, so let's both stop. Me first. Sorry. the AJG paper shows 5.15 (the meta study) and JAMA shows 3.1 those two numbers fall within the range of "3 - 5 per 10,000" the thing in the first sentence of my reply is called a DOI, it's a document identifier, that you can type into google or bing and it will pull up the correct journal citation i was citing. I understand that the JAMA paper said 3.1, but it also said a number almost 5 times higher near there for "major complication", separate from perforation. My original reply, where i did the > block quote, is from the AJG source; 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003429 And, for all we know someone is using a roto-rooter to perform colonoscopies and throwing the statistics off

bonsai_spool 5mo ago

> do you wanna keep harping on the fact i used LLM as a fucking search engine? You didn't give me a source before now, so I unfortunately had no other source to challenge except the LLM! > https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2779987 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2779987 3.5 per 10,000 Different source, friend. Please note that they say 3.1, not 3.5. That is at about 25% less than 4 (and even less than 5, let alone your previous assertions). And if either you or your LLM troubled yourself to read the article, even this is a confounded number in that we cannot determine whether low-volume, 'community' operators are worse than high-volume settings. > do you do SCREENING or DIAGNOSTIC/POLYP REMOVAL? We are talking about screening—once you have a target to remove, you are looking at a high-likelihood-of-cancer population. I am fully aware of this, so I don't understand why you are bringing up this difference which has not yet figured into our discussion. Is this something your LLM suggested to you? --- I think the thing to take away is that LLMs do not yet replace human understanding and discretion.

genewitch 4mo ago
we're both being jerks, so let's both stop. Me first. Sorry. the AJG paper shows 5.15 (the meta study) and JAMA shows 3.1 those two numbers fall within the range of "3 - 5 per 10,000" the thing in the first sentence of my reply is called a DOI, it's a document identifier, that you can type into google or bing and it will pull up the correct journal citation i was citing. I understand that the JAMA paper said 3.1, but it also said a number almost 5 times higher near there for "major complication", separate from perforation. My original reply, where i did the > block quote, is from the AJG source; 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003429 And, for all we know someone is using a roto-rooter to perform colonoscopies and throwing the statistics off