mgraczyk

7 ms·

31.
by mgraczyk 7mo ago
No they wouldn't have Nobody will write this, AI will write the entire thing. You don't need many people to maintain it
32.
by mgraczyk 7mo ago
I learn a lot faster now with LLMs. You could learn the windows APIs much faster if you wanted to learn them
33.
by mgraczyk 7mo ago
Slack is $45/user/month Soon you'll be able to write, host, and maintain a fully customizable version for probably 20k/month If you have a lot of employees this makes sense
34.
by mgraczyk 7mo ago
The part about pay is wrong, it's not comparing apples to apples. I've been a staff engineer at Google and other companies, I have been an EM and a very senior IC at big and small companies. If you're a very good IC, you can
35.
by mgraczyk 7mo ago
And yet they didn't do that! Really makes you think about what makes products good
36.
by mgraczyk 7mo ago
This isn't about privacy rights, it's about war I'm not suggesting that Anthropics models should be used by foreign governments for domestic surveillance I'm not worried about foreign governments spying on Americans, as
37.
by mgraczyk 7mo ago
Anthropic doesn't forbid DoW from using the models for foreign surveillance. It's not about harming others, it's about doing what is best for humanity in the long run, all things considered. I personally do not believe that f
38.
by mgraczyk 7mo ago
The contract included the agreement, and the government is now trying to change the contract, hence the disagreement
39.
by mgraczyk 7mo ago
When did he say this?
40.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
Fair and sorry about that Specifically what happened, and I think this is all public now is that prior to 2016 journalists and news organizations argued that Facebook was demoting news for various reasons. In reality it wasn't very eng
41.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
This is lie, I was there and this is not at all what happened
42.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
What's the best case scenario for the positive impact of this regulation?
43.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
But in this case following security norms would be a mistake. The right thing to take away is that you shouldn't dogmatically follow norms. Sometimes it's better to just build things if there is very little risk Nothing actually b
44.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
But do you see how crazy that sounds? If we know the numbers, we would just not do the treatment in those cases. And in reality it's not actually close like this. Early treatment is so overwhelmingly better than it completely dwarfs al
45.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
Your claim is equivalent to claiming that most cancer treatment is net harmful btw and this is obviously false, especially for cancers detected earlier
46.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
Nope, this is cope Tons of diagnostic interventions have been scaled without strong outcome data. For example many clinics now do fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) tests because they are safe, fairly cheap, and patients often pay direc
47.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
That's not how it works. Without the history of scans spaced out in time, they would typically need a biopsy. Multiple scans over time shows change and growth and improves the likelihood of an accurate triage And for the first part tha
48.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
> What if estimates are influenced by financial reasons by some entity like the hospital or insurer? It's this one It doesn't matter that some cancers are hard to diagnose. What matters is that some are not hard, especially if
49.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
> You're saying it as if detection somehow cures cancer, it doesn't. No, I didn't say the detector would cause cancer to be cured. I said fewer people would die with no downsides. If treatment is sometimes harmful then the
50.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
Yes that is my point. It's about cost
51.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
I agree, and I think rationing is the correct thing to do. I just don't like being gaslit by doctors (or would prefer doctors who know better). And I agree most doctors won't do this, but again I blame the doctors and their traini
52.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
Yes the machines should definitely get better, but I recommend you do get it if the cost it truly zero. Based on the data in the article it is still worth it despite the low resolution!
53.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
You're imagining that the doctor is required to act irrationally or against the patient's interest. I understand that they do act this way, but I'm pointing out that they don't have to! You walk into a doctor's offi
54.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
Great document? I just read the entire thing, it contains no evidence or justification for their claims. > We can then scan people with problems rather than people with too much money. Right, this is what it's really about. MRIs are
55.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
Seems like their main concern is "substantial downstream healthcare costs"
56.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
I agree, but they are failing to order scans when the probability of finding anything worth biopsying is low because of cost. This is so obvious it's crazy, our entire world view is misshaped around saving money. When you walk into a d
57.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
Read my #2 option, which accounts for that
58.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
Right, the problem in your model is that the doctors do! I am pointing out that this is a problem with the doctors, not the scan. Scans are a tool, doctors are not allowed to use them rationally because it would be too expensive, so they do
59.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
How can you trigger an invasive procedure if nobody learns the result of the scan?
60.
by mgraczyk 8mo ago
The difference in out come is With my change: 95% of people who are shown scans have cancer and are treated earlier. 5% of people do not have cancer and get CT scans. 0.5% of people get useless biopsies Without my change: many of those 95%

More ›