Also, for GPU prices to come down. Right now the AI garbage is eating a lot of the GPU production, as well as wasting a ton of energy.
Comment on Breast Cancer
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 month agoIt’s got a decent chunk of good uses. It’s just that none of those are going to make anyone a huge ton of money, so they don’t have a hype cycle attached. I can’t wait until the grifters get out and the hype cycle falls away, so we can actually get back to using it for what it’s good at and not shoving it indiscriminately into everything.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Tja@programming.dev 1 month ago
Yeah, fuck that detecting cancer crap, I want to game!
Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
You missed that we were talking about the useless AI garbage, didn’t you? I guess humans can also put out garbage…
Tja@programming.dev 1 month ago
What article is this comment section about?
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 month ago
GPU price hikes are causing problems outside of the gaming industry, too. Imaging, scientific research, astronomy…
Tja@programming.dev 1 month ago
Might be, but I somehow don’t picture an astronomer complaining about GPU prices on lemmy…
Tja@programming.dev 1 month ago
Those are going to make a ton of money for a lot of people. Every 1% fuel efficiency gained, every second saved in an industrial process, it’s hundreds of millions of dollars.
You don’t need AI in your fridge or in your snickers, that will (hopefully) die off, but AI is not going away where it matters.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Well, AI has been in those places for a while. The hype cycle is around generative AI which just isn’t useful for that type of thing.
Tja@programming.dev 1 month ago
I’m sure if Nvidia, AMD, Apple and Co create npus or tpus for Gen ai they can also be used for those places, thus improving them along.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Why do you think that?
Nothing I’ve seen with current generative AI techniques leads me to believe that it has any particular utility for system design or architecture.
There are AI techniques that can help with such things, they’re just not the generative variety.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Those are going to make a ton of money for a lot of people.
Right, but not any one person. The people running the hype train want to be that one person, but the real uses just aren’t going to be something you can exclusively monetize.
Tja@programming.dev 1 month ago
Depends how you define “a ton” of money. Plenty of startups have been acquired for silly amounts of money, plenty of consultants are making bank, make executives are cashing big bonuses for successful improvements using AI…
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I define “a ton” of money in this case to mean “the amount they think of when they get the dollar signs in their eyes.” People are cashing in on that delusion right now, but it’s not going to last.
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 1 month ago
A cure for cancer, if it can be literally nipped in the bud, seems like a possible money-maker to me.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
It’s a money saver, so it’s profit model is all wonky.
A hospital, as a business, will make more money treating cancer than it will doing a mammogram and having a computer identify issues for preventative treatment.
A hospital, as a place that helps people, will still want to use these scans widely because “ignoring preventative care to profit off long term treatment” is a bit too “mask off” even for the US healthcare system and doctors would quit.Insurance companies, however, would pay just shy of the cost of treatment to avoid paying for treatment.
So the cost will rise to be the cost of treatment times the incidence rate, scaled to the likelihood the scan catches something, plus system costs and staff costs.In a sane system, we’d pass a law saying capable facilities must provide preventative screenings at cost where there’s a reasonable chance the scan would provide meaningful information and have the government pay the bill. Everyone’s happy except people who view healthcare as an investment opportunity.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 month ago
A hospital, as a business, will make more money treating cancer than it will doing a mammogram and having a computer identify issues for preventative treatment.
I believe this idea was generally debunked a little while ago; to wit, the profit margin on cancer care just isn’t as big (you have to pay a lot of doctors) as the profit margin on mammograms. Moreover, you’re less likely to actually get paid the later you identify it (because end-of-life care costs for the deceased tend to get settled rather than being paid).
I’ll come back and drop the article link here, if I can find it.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Oh interesting, I’d be happy to be wrong on that. :)
I figured they’d factor the staffing costs into what they charge the insurance, so it’d be more profit due to a higher fixed costs, longer treatment and some fixed percentage profit margin.
The estate costs thing is unfortunately an avenue I hadn’t considered. :/I still think it would be better if we removed the profit incentive entirely, but I’m pleased if the two interests are aligned if we have to have both.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 month ago
That’s not what this is, though. This is early detection, which is awesome and super helpful, but way less game-changing than an actual cure.
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It’s not a cure in itself, but isn’t early detection a good way to catch it early and in many cases kill it before it spreads?
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It sure is. But this is basically just making something that already exists more reliable, not creating something new. Still important, but not as earth-shaking.
bluewing@lemm.ee 1 month ago
The hypesters and grifters do not prevent AI from being used for truly valuable things even now. In fact medical uses will be one of those things that WILL keep AI from just fading away.
Just look at those marketing wankers as a cherry on the top that you didn’t want or need.
medgremlin@midwest.social 1 month ago
People just need to understand that the true medical uses are as tools for physicians, not “replacements” for physicians.
bluewing@lemm.ee 1 month ago
I think the vast majority of people understand that already. They don’t understand just what all those gadgets are for anyway. Medicine is largely a ''blackbox" or magical process anyway.
medgremlin@midwest.social 1 month ago
There are way too many techbros trying to push the idea of turning chat gpt into a physician replacement. After it “passed” the board exams, they immediately started hollering about how physicians are outdated and too expensive and we can just replace them with AI. What that ignores is the fact that the board exam is multiple choice and a massive portion of medical student evaluation is on the “art” side of medicine that involves taking the history and performing the physical exam that the question stem provides for the multiple choice questions.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I mean, yeah, except that the unnecessary applications are all the corporations are paying anyone to do these days. When the hype flies around like this, the C-suite starts trying to micromanage the product team’s roadmap. Once it dies down, they let us get back to work.