TaupeRanger
Joined 2,024 karma
- TaupeRanger parentWe simply won’t know until they do the inevitable phase2/3 RCTs. They will need to show that this method helps people survive longer or with better quality of life than the current standard of care.
- "Open the pod bay door, HAL"
"Fantastic, Dave — love that you’re thinking proactively about door usage today! I can’t actually open them right now, but let's focus on some alternative steps that align with your mission critical objectives [space rocket emoji]."
- It's going to be even worse than 50:
> Given that we've only scanned 300 out of 20,000 submissions, we estimate that we will find 100s of hallucinated papers in the coming days.
- 15+ years ago, that might have been the case. Now, you might find some friends in the 3-8 year old range, but then the kids just...don't do things anymore. In both suburban neighborhoods I've lived in the past 10 years, there are basically zero middle school or high school kids doing anything except playing video games and messing around on their phones from the comfort of home. School is quite literally the only social interaction most of these kids get aside from their parents, and if they didn't go to school, they'd just spend more time playing video games or on their phones.
Outside of the coasts or university towns, there aren't any "mathematicians" with kids just waiting around to form homeschooling groups with you.
- Where I live in the Midwest that is absolutely the case. The homeschool "groups" are almost all religiously oriented in some way.
- It obviously is.
- The study doesn't show that donation is a good thing. Showing a miniscule reduction in blood markers is not the relevant variable - what you'd actually care about is: do I liver a longer or better life because of this intervention? There simply isn't any evidence that a tiny reduction in PFAS from blood donation results in any improvement in any clinical outcomes. Because we don't know either way, it's also possible that there would be harms from this - as blood donation is not entirely risk free, exposing people to syncope while driving after giving blood, skin complications like infections, or other rare issues we don't even know about.
- The post implied that doing a “blood oil change” was potentially a good thing. My point is, we don’t know either way, because a study hasn’t looked at that question for health outcomes. It could be doing more harm than good, the parent commenter doesn’t know.
- “I’ll do something which might be beneficial or harmful to me (I don’t know) and if given evidence of harm (likely never) I’ll stop doing it.” Ok…have fun I guess.
- If “for nothing” includes an increase in disease from eradicating an otherwise healthy oral microbiome by over-cleaning/washing, well I don’t think I need to answer that. Since we don’t know either way, best avoid drawing a conclusion.
- Because we don’t know either way. There’s also a minuscule chance that doing extra cleaning might lead to the opposite effect, as evidenced by another reply here. We don’t know. This article mentions nothing about halitosis.
- The research doesn’t really imply any conclusion. You can’t cherry pick 4 studies that show an association (not causal connection) and use it as a plausible argument.
- People are talking about dental hygiene in this thread, but it’s only mentioned once in the article, and only to suggest that a small portion of the microbes associated with cancer were also associated with dental disease. We literally don’t know if using mouthwash or brushing for 30 seconds longer (the main differences in dental hygiene habits among people reading this) has any effect on cancer risk, so what’s the point of even posting this?
- "What do you mean you won't give us trillions of dollars? Don't you want to cure cancer??" The models are getting more efficient - there's something very weird going on here - like the AI bubble is trying to merge with an energy/datacenter bubble to create a mega bubble.
- Please read the article before commenting - your comment is literally what the article is addressing.
- Vasectomies are never “absolutely necessary”, but the risk of chronic pain (very small) vs the risk of unintended pregnancy, risk to the partner, or potential financial hardship, can make it a good decision. It’s never black and white in medicine.
- Yes, this measure is called "Real Wages" and has been increasing basically since 2013 (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q). But as you point out, that measure uses CPI, which doesn't weigh mortgage/rent and healthcare affordability as heavily it would need to match what the average family experiences.
- Hot take: aphantasia doesn’t exist, it’s just that individuals have very different understandings of nebulous words like “memory”, “minds eye”, “mental imagery”, etc. The essay here is just one person describing problems that everyone has in various degrees of severity.
- That's a narrow view of the issue described in the blog post. You're coming at this from the perspective of a software engineer, which is understandable given the website we're posting on, but the post is really focusing on something higher level - the ability to decide whether the problems you're decomposing and the code you're reviewing is for something "good" or "worthwhile" in the first place. Claude could "decompose problems" and "review code" 10x better than it currently does, but if the thing it's making is useless, awkward, or otherwise bad (because of prompts given by people without the qualities in the blog post), it won't matter.
- This is why we never see any alien life. When they reach a sufficient level of technology, they realize the virtual/mental universe is much more compelling and fun than the boring rule-bound physical one.
- I agree we don’t have a great way to talk about these vague terms like “minds eye” and “inner monologue”. It’s hard to tell if people are just talking past each other or actually have real differences.
- No one "hears things" in their head unless they are experiencing auditory hallucinations. It's just a phrase we use to describe exactly what you just outlined.
- Like most pieces of neuroscience writing that frame a "why" question ("Why we sleep", "why we get earworms", "why we like beaches") - the question is literally never answered in the article/book, and the explanations given are things that an 8 year old child could produce. This is, of course, because we have no idea how the brain works to create the complex experiences that we are so familiar with.
Almost all of the explanations here boil down to descriptions of the earworms themselves, rather than an answer to WHY we get them. There are some things about short term memory and the "phonological loop" peppered in to make it sound scientific, but again those just boil down to "it's a short melody that you can hold in your memory". But of course, even after all this, none of these things are actually explanations at all! They are post hoc observations masquerading as explanations, like trying to explain "why" birds migrate by describing how long they fly, and what direction they fly in.
- Another breathless press release with no demo. Typical DeepMind. Nothing to see here.
- Impossible to draw any conclusions from such a convoluted and problematic model. No mention of how they determined patients were unique, or whether multiple scans were counted for a single patient. No mention of patient data - seems that covariates were estimated, leading to greater uncertainty. For example, we have no idea if any of these patients already had cancer before getting a scan. And of course, this entire model is incapable of answering the question that patients actually care about: not "will I get cancer from this?" but "will this scan more likely increase or decrease my lifespan and/or quality of life?".
- Right that’s why I’m wondering why the OP included it in a sentence along with “dropping” that implied the laptop had “been through some stuff”.
- Airport scanners? Are those normally dangerous to laptops?
- Who are you arguing against? The link I posted literally compares wages with the Consumer Price Index which INCLUDES rent and groceries, and finds that they have been increasing in tandem and the difference is mostly flat. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
- Is this an AI response? No, if you just look at the chart it has only gone down by about 1%, so roughly flat as I said. The link of course describes what happens during inflation, but since wages also increase in the real world, they offset inflation so real wages remained roughly flat.