|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 10 2016 11:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Claims that automating the physician's job is easy tend to rest on pretty fundamental misunderstandings of 1) a physician's job and 2) how things are actually diagnosed. I'm more open to the idea that surgery/dentistry can be automated, but I'm still skeptical. These claims often rely on an over-indulging faith in math and technology.
I find it really difficult to imagine that surgery can't be automated. No reason at the hypothetical level a machine cannot get accurate information about it's location, or about the surrounding tissue.
I should be clear, automating a physicians job is certainly NOT easy by today's standards. It's borderline impossible. However with the increasing technologic, especially biotech, growth something that is far fetched today becomes very reasonable in 10-20 years, particular given the industries we are talking about.
Diagnosing a person requires two principles things:
1) Knowledge about the state of the body; whether this be tissue types, body compisition, genetics, microbiota of the environment, etc. I don't see any theoretical barrier to machines being able to get accurate information about all aspects of the body. It requires a level of technology not yet developed, but there does not seem to exist a theoretical barrier.
2) Knowledge of how that state of the body influences the health of the body: Simple cases should be obvious. Obviously if we scan the body and detect influenza that's a pretty set and done issue. More complex issues rest on a massively improved understanding of the body. Someone suffering from IBS is a good example...we can't exactly pinpoint why, because we don't know enough.
Again, there is no theoretic barrier to why we can't have complete understanding of the body. There are two paths, one is simple knowledge accumlation, and given that the biological sciences are an informational science this is currently subjected to aggressive exponential growth. We will know thousands of times more about the human body in the next 15 years than we have learned throughout the entire history of humanity. The second method is getting an accuracte scan of the body, and then running that through an algorithm based on that to determine what is going on.
|
IBM Watson health and advanced Clinical Decision Support Systems are pretty good at helping physicians make decisions, though they are no replacement. Knowledge management and such help doctors a lot as well.
|
Question about Benghazi draws massive boos from the crowd.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Dang this is a shit show. These moderators are getting owned.
|
On March 10 2016 11:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 11:55 farvacola wrote:On March 10 2016 11:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Claims that automating the physician's job is easy tend to rest on pretty fundamental misunderstandings of 1) a physician's job and 2) how things are actually diagnosed. I'm more open to the idea that surgery/dentistry can be automated, but I'm still skeptical. These claims often rely on an over-indulging faith in math and technology. Was gonna post about the same thing. Diagnostics are not what people think think they are lol. Diagnostics isn't a math equation. People have a grossly simplified understanding of health and the human body in general.
Not at todays level.
At an ultimate level it absolutely can be. If you know the chemical makeup and state of every atom in the body then there is no reason you cannot predict how all of these atoms, and thus the system, will behave.
|
On March 10 2016 12:00 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 11:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Claims that automating the physician's job is easy tend to rest on pretty fundamental misunderstandings of 1) a physician's job and 2) how things are actually diagnosed. I'm more open to the idea that surgery/dentistry can be automated, but I'm still skeptical. These claims often rely on an over-indulging faith in math and technology. I find it really difficult to imagine that surgery can't be automated. No reason at the hypothetical level a machine cannot get accurate information about it's location, or about the surrounding tissue. I should be clear, automating a physicians job is certainly NOT easy by today's standards. It's borderline impossible. However with the increasing technologic, especially biotech, growth something that is far fetched today becomes very reasonable in 10-20 years, particular given the industries we are talking about. Diagnosing a person requires two principles things: 1) Knowledge about the state of the body; whether this be tissue types, body compisition, genetics, microbiota of the environment, etc. I don't see any theoretical barrier to machines being able to get accurate information about all aspects of the body. It requires a level of technology not yet developed, but there does not seem to exist a theoretical barrier. 2) Knowledge of how that state of the body influences the health of the body: Simple cases should be obvious. Obviously if we scan the body and detect influenza that's a pretty set and done issue. More complex issues rest on a massively improved understanding of the body. Someone suffering from IBS is a good example...we can't exactly pinpoint why, because we don't know enough. Again, there is no theoretic barrier to why we can't have complete understanding of the body. There are two paths, one is simple knowledge accumlation, and given that the biological sciences are an informational science this is currently subjected to aggressive exponential growth. We will know thousands of times more about the human body in the next 15 years than we have learned throughout the entire history of humanity. The second method is getting an accuracte scan of the body, and then running that through an algorithm based on that to determine what is going on.
Theoretically, yes, there isn't a barrier to automating a physician's job. But, theoretically, there isn't a barrier to automating any job. But that's in the distant future, when we're all being wiped off the face of the planet by Skynet.
Automating a physician's job isn't something that should realistically be a concern in the foreseeable future. Predicting a range of 10-20 years is incredibly optimistic. Technology has made incredible strides in just 100 years and does amazing things, but it still has a long way to go.
|
On March 10 2016 11:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about this on one hand it should certain be ruled illegal on the other they would have been killed... But now they are being placed in Zoos... Show nested quote +Three American zoos have pulled off an audacious clandestine operation to fly a group of elephants out of Swaziland despite a legal challenge to block the transfer, enraging conservationists who claim that removing elephants from the wild for display in zoos is cruel and outdated.
The 18 elephants – three males and 15 females ranging in age from six to 25 – were sedated, loaded onto crates and placed on a large cargo plane that arrived in Swaziland at around 7.30am local time on Tuesday. Pictures taken at the scene show several large crates, ostensibly for elephants, being picked up by a crane and placed onto trucks.
The elephants will be split among three zoos – the Dallas zoo, Sedgwick County zoo in Kansas and Henry Doorly zoo in Nebraska – where they will be put on exhibit and used for breeding purposes.
The unannounced move, which was previously scheduled for May, has stunned an animal welfare group that was due to argue against the transfer in a US federal court on 17 March. The group, Friends of Animals, has now admitted defeat in its bid to prevent what it calls the “stolen 18” from being taken from the wild and placed into zoos.
Friends of Animals filed for an emergency injunction to stop the transfer, argued via a frantic teleconference with US federal court judge John Bates. Bates’s ruling notes that the short timeframe meant he was “not able to definitively resolve the issue”. But he sided with the zoos, which pointed out that the elephants had already been drugged and that leaving them in the small African nation would have put them at risk. Source
Considering that a non-profit group offered to actually relocate those 18 elephants to somewhere where they're actually safe and well, i'd argue that is a highly illegal and extremely dickish move, purely aimed at dodging the legal hearing.
edit: in regards to automated surgery, we're actually not that far off. We already have a decent amount of robot-assisted surgery, automating that process isn't that much harder.
I think there's a misunderstanding though: just because a robot could perform an operation, doesn't mean he automatically will do. Planes nowadays are advanced enough to automatically start, navigate and land - yet they're still piloted. So "pure robot surgery", i doubt that it will exist in the next 100 years or even more. Regardless of the technical possibilities - purely because of human nature.
|
On March 10 2016 12:01 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 11:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 10 2016 11:55 farvacola wrote:On March 10 2016 11:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Claims that automating the physician's job is easy tend to rest on pretty fundamental misunderstandings of 1) a physician's job and 2) how things are actually diagnosed. I'm more open to the idea that surgery/dentistry can be automated, but I'm still skeptical. These claims often rely on an over-indulging faith in math and technology. Was gonna post about the same thing. Diagnostics are not what people think think they are lol. Diagnostics isn't a math equation. People have a grossly simplified understanding of health and the human body in general. Not at todays level. At an ultimate level it absolutely can be. If you know the chemical makeup and state of every atom in the body then there is no reason you cannot predict how all of these atoms, and this the system, will behave.
If we could model reality accurate to a molecular scale, that would be great except I don't think there's enough computing power in the world to do that right now. Protein modeling already takes up insane amounts of calculation power, and that's a much smaller and simpler calculation.
I don't think you really know how complex healthcare is. Just because a computer beat a Go player doesn't mean they're anywhere close to replacing doctors.
|
On March 10 2016 12:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 12:00 L_Master wrote:On March 10 2016 11:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Claims that automating the physician's job is easy tend to rest on pretty fundamental misunderstandings of 1) a physician's job and 2) how things are actually diagnosed. I'm more open to the idea that surgery/dentistry can be automated, but I'm still skeptical. These claims often rely on an over-indulging faith in math and technology. I find it really difficult to imagine that surgery can't be automated. No reason at the hypothetical level a machine cannot get accurate information about it's location, or about the surrounding tissue. I should be clear, automating a physicians job is certainly NOT easy by today's standards. It's borderline impossible. However with the increasing technologic, especially biotech, growth something that is far fetched today becomes very reasonable in 10-20 years, particular given the industries we are talking about. Diagnosing a person requires two principles things: 1) Knowledge about the state of the body; whether this be tissue types, body compisition, genetics, microbiota of the environment, etc. I don't see any theoretical barrier to machines being able to get accurate information about all aspects of the body. It requires a level of technology not yet developed, but there does not seem to exist a theoretical barrier. 2) Knowledge of how that state of the body influences the health of the body: Simple cases should be obvious. Obviously if we scan the body and detect influenza that's a pretty set and done issue. More complex issues rest on a massively improved understanding of the body. Someone suffering from IBS is a good example...we can't exactly pinpoint why, because we don't know enough. Again, there is no theoretic barrier to why we can't have complete understanding of the body. There are two paths, one is simple knowledge accumlation, and given that the biological sciences are an informational science this is currently subjected to aggressive exponential growth. We will know thousands of times more about the human body in the next 15 years than we have learned throughout the entire history of humanity. The second method is getting an accuracte scan of the body, and then running that through an algorithm based on that to determine what is going on. Theoretically, yes, there isn't a barrier to automating a physician's job. But, theoretically, there isn't a barrier to automating any job. But that's in the distant future, when we're all being wiped off the face of the planet by Skynet.
Perhaps that is where we disagree. Given the pace of technological growth, this is probably not going to be the distant future. It may not be 2045 as certain people like to claim, but I find it far more likely this will be an issue before the close of this century than that it will first be rearing it's head by the 3000.
|
Waste if time follow-up again.
Edit: Fog of war *giggles*
|
Sanders just asked to respond and then talked about something different.
Probably justified as Hillary was stealing the show as she could respond to questions that she knows exactly what to say about.
|
Univision is pretty awful tbh
|
On March 10 2016 12:04 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 12:01 L_Master wrote:On March 10 2016 11:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 10 2016 11:55 farvacola wrote:On March 10 2016 11:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Claims that automating the physician's job is easy tend to rest on pretty fundamental misunderstandings of 1) a physician's job and 2) how things are actually diagnosed. I'm more open to the idea that surgery/dentistry can be automated, but I'm still skeptical. These claims often rely on an over-indulging faith in math and technology. Was gonna post about the same thing. Diagnostics are not what people think think they are lol. Diagnostics isn't a math equation. People have a grossly simplified understanding of health and the human body in general. Not at todays level. At an ultimate level it absolutely can be. If you know the chemical makeup and state of every atom in the body then there is no reason you cannot predict how all of these atoms, and this the system, will behave. If we could model reality accurate to a molecular scale, that would be great except I don't think there's enough computing power in the world to do that right now. Protein modeling already takes up insane amounts of calculation power, and that's a much smaller and simpler calculation.
Right now it's vastly beyond our scale. However, growth in this area is highly exponential, so what is totally beyond us today will be downright lethargic in a decade or two.
On March 10 2016 12:04 ticklishmusic wrote:
I don't think you really know how complex healthcare is. Just because a computer beat a Go player doesn't mean they're anywhere close to replacing doctors.
On the contrary, if anything I suspect I think it's more difficult than it is.
People said similar things about the human genome project. The goal in 1990 was to do it in 15 years at an estimated cost of something like $3 billion USD. 8 years into the project only 7% had been sequences and people said the project was doomed.
Two, just TWO years later the project was finished for less than $200 million. What gives? People were forgetting that technology grows exponentially. Processing power went from hopelessly lacking to sufficient to get the job done effortlessly. Following that same trajectory, you can now get your genome sequenced for like $100 by 23AndMe. The actual cost is even less. That's a well over 200,000 fold improvement in a 15 year time span.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On March 10 2016 12:00 Ghanburighan wrote:
Sanders refers to himself in 3rd person. Ugly side of revolutionary rhetoric coming out again.
What does that mean?
|
On March 10 2016 12:01 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 11:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 10 2016 11:55 farvacola wrote:On March 10 2016 11:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Claims that automating the physician's job is easy tend to rest on pretty fundamental misunderstandings of 1) a physician's job and 2) how things are actually diagnosed. I'm more open to the idea that surgery/dentistry can be automated, but I'm still skeptical. These claims often rely on an over-indulging faith in math and technology. Was gonna post about the same thing. Diagnostics are not what people think think they are lol. Diagnostics isn't a math equation. People have a grossly simplified understanding of health and the human body in general. Not at todays level. At an ultimate level it absolutely can be. If you know the chemical makeup and state of every atom in the body then there is no reason you cannot predict how all of these atoms, and thus the system, will behave.
This is a pipe dream. Most careers dealing with people can't be automated - certainly not to a level that reduces or obviates the need for having a person in the loop. Jobs like education, law, medicine. When you introduce technological advances in these fields, it lets people do a better job, but the technology doesn't replace the people. You can make technology to perform surgery, but all that does is allow the surgeon to perform a surgery he couldn't before. It doesn't remove the human element. Like the use of powerpoint hasn't made teachers obsolete. The simplest refutation is the clients in all these fields want to be serviced by people, not robots. What you're talking about is the medical pod from Prometheus. That's not 15 years away. Medicine has huge unknown frontiers.
|
On March 10 2016 12:12 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 12:00 Ghanburighan wrote:
Sanders refers to himself in 3rd person. Ugly side of revolutionary rhetoric coming out again. What does that mean?
It's as weird as:
Ghanburighan: Ghanburighan is awesome.
The Templar: The Templar is awesome.
|
Hillary: These corporate interests are contributing millions to my campaign because they think it will have 0 influence on the legislation I push against them
Hillary supporters: Sounds legit.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On March 10 2016 12:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
Hillary: These corporate interests are contributing millions to my campaign because even though they think it will have 0 influence on the legislation I push against them
Hillary supporters: Sounds legit.
FTFY and I don't think anyone who's actually paying attention and supports clinton really cares about that at this point.
|
Anyone else find it strange a political science major studying in the US can't speak conversational English to ask a question at a debate?
|
On March 10 2016 12:18 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 12:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
Hillary: These corporate interests are contributing millions to my campaign because even though they think it will have 0 influence on the legislation I push against them
Hillary supporters: Sounds legit. FTFY and I don't think anyone who's actually paying attention and supports clinton really cares about that at this point.
It was intentional, because it's so damn absurd.
Hillary realizes we already have the "date certain" thing she's talking about right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
