7 ms·

If I had to choose between Derek Lowe (author of the anti-amyloid-research article who is also highly experienced and skilled in pharma) and Scott Alexander/Dav

by dekhn 4mo ago

If I had to choose between Derek Lowe (author of the anti-amyloid-research article who is also highly experienced and skilled in pharma) and Scott Alexander/David Schneider-Joseph (psychiatrist and AI engineer, respectively), all my priors suggest Lowe gives better advice. "I am David Schneider-Joseph, an engineer formerly with SpaceX and Google, now working in AI safety. Alzheimer’s isn’t my field, but I got very interested in it, spent six months studying the literature, and came away believing the amyloid hypothesis was basically completely solid. I thought I’d share that understanding with current skeptics." 6 months of reading literature when you don't know how to read biomedical literature isn't very confidence inducing. I know this site really likes it when smart outsiders come in and disrupt the status quo, but... probably not in this case.

selimthegrim 4mo ago
This really has become the new physics now, right where they think they can invade any given field in six months because that’s how long it’s supposed to take physicists to learn AI
- dekhn 4mo ago
  In some ways physics is different from biology and medicine, I do think outsiders to physics can pick up and contribute a bit more easily (although it depends on field). Biomed just has an absolute insane amount of ambiguous knowledge that mostly gets picked up through diffusion across decades of learning. And many of the results in the literature are just wrong (one of the reasons I stopped being a researcher was seeing just how bad the publication record in biology is). BTW, many physics people pick up the mechanical bits of machine learning/AI very quickly since they have all the foundational mathematics. The harder parts are understanding all the methods/tricks/complexity that got us to the state of the art- similar to biomed, you just sort of have to immerse yourself amongst knowledgeable people and let their knowledge diffuse in.
bigbuppo 4mo ago
I'm pretty sure there's an xkcd for this.
DavidSJ 4mo ago
This frequently comes up as a critique of my article, but I don't claim to be disrupting the field as a smart outsider. Rather, I looked at the field and concluded that the experts seem to know what they're doing. Derek Lowe is very much in the minority on this matter.
- righthand 4mo ago
  “Derek Lowe is very much in the minority” Is putting your thumb on the scale against Lowe. When a few replies down from here some commenters have provided an article demonstrating the exact fraudulent science in favor of what Lowe is saying.[0] It seems you may very well be disrupting it because he has a minority opinion. So you’ve possibly spent 6 months understanding an incorrect and fraud supported thesis. That seems like an outsider trying to disrupt it by using their “Google/SpaceX” creds to claim authority on the work of insiders. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48544407 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48544407
  - DavidSJ 4mo ago
    1. I don't say Derek Lowe is wrong because he's in the minority. Minorities are sometimes right. But since the parent comment was arguing on authority and my lack thereof, I point out only that one shouldn't cherry-pick one's choice of authorities. Either accept the majority opinion of the experts, or come to your own opinion based on the quality of the arguments and evidence. 2. I would never want anyone to believe what I say because of "Google/SpaceX creds" (I didn't even write that line, Scott added it, and only to provide a brief biography and acknowledge that I do not work in the field, not to lend an air of authority to my words). 3. There's no need to cite the fraud to me, since I already discuss it in my article. You are welcome to read that article and form your own opinion about the arguments therein.
- dekhn 4mo ago
  No, he's not (I work in pharma at a company that does basic and applied research on Alz). It's more correct to say there are several camps, but the camp promoting amyloid plaques as the causative/driver for Alz has struggled greatly to come up with evidence supporting its position.
cassepipe 4mo ago
Fair enough but it's not by Scott Alexander but a guest post by David Schneider-Jospeh EDIT: They edited their message to reflect that
palmotea 4mo ago
> 6 months of reading literature when you don't know how to read biomedical literature isn't very confidence inducing. Come on, he's a software engineer, a little reading will give him a shit-ton of confidence.
himata4113 4mo ago
Makes me wonder if this is the typical correlation != causation argument where amyloids are produced and are simply a marker/symptom rather than the cause.
plomme 4mo ago
I don't know anything about alzheimers but I'd hope someone that does would engage with David SJ's points instead of dismissing him on lack of authority alone.
- FatherOfCurses 4mo ago
  Oh FFS what does any knowledge matter any more if we can now say that someone who has no medical training has the ability to turn the entire field of Alzheimers on its head?

by dekhn 4mo ago

selimthegrim 4mo ago

This really has become the new physics now, right where they think they can invade any given field in six months because that’s how long it’s supposed to take physicists to learn AI

dekhn 4mo ago
In some ways physics is different from biology and medicine, I do think outsiders to physics can pick up and contribute a bit more easily (although it depends on field). Biomed just has an absolute insane amount of ambiguous knowledge that mostly gets picked up through diffusion across decades of learning. And many of the results in the literature are just wrong (one of the reasons I stopped being a researcher was seeing just how bad the publication record in biology is). BTW, many physics people pick up the mechanical bits of machine learning/AI very quickly since they have all the foundational mathematics. The harder parts are understanding all the methods/tricks/complexity that got us to the state of the art- similar to biomed, you just sort of have to immerse yourself amongst knowledgeable people and let their knowledge diffuse in.

bigbuppo 4mo ago

I'm pretty sure there's an xkcd for this.

DavidSJ 4mo ago

This frequently comes up as a critique of my article, but I don't claim to be disrupting the field as a smart outsider. Rather, I looked at the field and concluded that the experts seem to know what they're doing. Derek Lowe is very much in the minority on this matter.

righthand 4mo ago
“Derek Lowe is very much in the minority” Is putting your thumb on the scale against Lowe. When a few replies down from here some commenters have provided an article demonstrating the exact fraudulent science in favor of what Lowe is saying.[0] It seems you may very well be disrupting it because he has a minority opinion. So you’ve possibly spent 6 months understanding an incorrect and fraud supported thesis. That seems like an outsider trying to disrupt it by using their “Google/SpaceX” creds to claim authority on the work of insiders. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48544407 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48544407
- DavidSJ 4mo ago
  1. I don't say Derek Lowe is wrong because he's in the minority. Minorities are sometimes right. But since the parent comment was arguing on authority and my lack thereof, I point out only that one shouldn't cherry-pick one's choice of authorities. Either accept the majority opinion of the experts, or come to your own opinion based on the quality of the arguments and evidence. 2. I would never want anyone to believe what I say because of "Google/SpaceX creds" (I didn't even write that line, Scott added it, and only to provide a brief biography and acknowledge that I do not work in the field, not to lend an air of authority to my words). 3. There's no need to cite the fraud to me, since I already discuss it in my article. You are welcome to read that article and form your own opinion about the arguments therein.
dekhn 4mo ago
No, he's not (I work in pharma at a company that does basic and applied research on Alz). It's more correct to say there are several camps, but the camp promoting amyloid plaques as the causative/driver for Alz has struggled greatly to come up with evidence supporting its position.

cassepipe 4mo ago

Fair enough but it's not by Scott Alexander but a guest post by David Schneider-Jospeh EDIT: They edited their message to reflect that

palmotea 4mo ago

> 6 months of reading literature when you don't know how to read biomedical literature isn't very confidence inducing. Come on, he's a software engineer, a little reading will give him a shit-ton of confidence.

himata4113 4mo ago

Makes me wonder if this is the typical correlation != causation argument where amyloids are produced and are simply a marker/symptom rather than the cause.

plomme 4mo ago

I don't know anything about alzheimers but I'd hope someone that does would engage with David SJ's points instead of dismissing him on lack of authority alone.

FatherOfCurses 4mo ago
Oh FFS what does any knowledge matter any more if we can now say that someone who has no medical training has the ability to turn the entire field of Alzheimers on its head?