The appeal of medicine as biostatistics improves diagnostic prediction algorithms

[Setto]

Why are we looking at this as an all or nothing scenario? Doctors wont be completely replaced anytime soon, but at some point it will be cheaper and more efficient to have technology move in an take a few jobs.

For example, let's say there is a system that can accurately diagnose a patient just as well as a physician. If this system were in place, the doc would now have time to focus on other aspects of the job and allow them to deal with a higher patient load. This would effectively increase the supply of doctors wrt the static demand of patients.

Now if this technology advances even further, maybe it will lead to one physician overseeing all the tech and making sure the diagnoses etc are correct. Sort of like one security guard overseeing all the video monitors as opposed to a bunch of them patrolling the halls.

So maybe the human element won't be extinguished completely, but it's possible that advancements in diagnostics etc could have some effect down the line that leads to lower pay or need for docs?

Of course, I know **** all about this subject or economics. Or supply and demand. Or security...or video monitors.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[7331poas]

but at some point it will be cheaper and more efficient to have technology move in an take a few jobs.

You mean at some point it will be cheaper for technology to come in and take ALL jobs.

as for the "human element" computer software will one day be able to recognize emotion and discern dialogue better than any human can. Thats certain


None of this will happen in my lifetime. But it certainly is ominous to recognize that we are just biding our time until that technology can arise.

 

[wizzed101]

The hundreds of thousands employed by the factory towns producing apple products in China would be very surprised to hear that Apple is not involved in manufacturing.

I think it's just a fact that less humans are involved in the production of a single car today than were when Ford made his model T so I don't know where you are pulling that from.

Also, that is not what you said. Your example was GMOs and their proposed effect, namely abundance of food. You then said people "want things in a particular way". How can they want things in a particular way if they don't know how good they have it until it is gone? The statement you just made, that when presented with options people generate additional preferences, is exactly the opposite of your original statement, that people do not understand their own preferences until options are absent.

The second statement is also not true. For every 1 person who wants an organic, GMO free, California tomato there are 1 million people who just want a reasonably priced tomato to make salsa with. That fact is precisely why automation of anything succeeds in the market every time it is put into practice; a standardized and cheap-to-make "good enough" product beats the carefully crafted artisan product every time. The latter isn't a mass market product, it is for a niche community whether it be hipsters, people who like the idea of supporting local farmers, or those rich enough to afford consistently buying artisan products

First, of all, those Chinese will not be surprised at all because Foxconn employed them, not Apple. Take apart your iPhone and see which components are made by Apple. I think about one: the case.

I was not talking about a single car. That is a pointless argument. Think about this: how many people did it take to bring you 1 gallon of milk 1000 years ago? One. How many people does it take to bring you one gallon of milk nowadays? A lot.

How can they want things in a particular way if they don't know how good they have it until it is gone?

Because they had other things to worry about; because they are not in excess yet; because they cannot afford to enjoy the difference. And technology will only bring more options, not less so I don't know what is your point regarding such preference.

1 per million? Right... That is kind toooooo conservative. You are saying that chains like Whole Foods thrive on a total 300 people in the US! Let me very conservative here. Because currently raging against the 1% is all the rage now, let say 1 per 100 enjoys "placebo" food. That leaves us with about 3,000,000 people dispersing all over this huge country. Forget about logistics, how many people does it take to grow produce food the old way for 3,000,000 people? A lot! What if they have another particular taste: French cuisine! Let's make consomme http://honest-food.net/2011/01/21/wild-duck-consomme/ Jeez man, whenever I think consomme I think "waste."be

Don't belittle the "niches." They may be more numerous than you think

there will be algorithms which can search an entire database of similar patient reponses and reatime calculate the best possible medical outcome. Yes, doctors do guess work all. the.time. Computers can do the perfect thing every time based on actual evidence.

Now you are just trolling. I am sorry for saying

Because they would've been doing medicine instead

 

[Lucca]

First, of all, those Chinese will not be surprised at all because Foxconn employed them, not Apple. Take apart your iPhone and see which components are made by Apple. I think about one: the case.

I was not talking about a single car. That is a pointless argument. Think about this: how many people did it take to bring you 1 gallon of milk 1000 years ago? One. How many people does it take to bring you one gallon of milk nowadays? A lot.



Because they had other things to worry about; because they are not in excess yet; because they cannot afford to enjoy the difference. And technology will only bring more options, not less so I don't know what is your point regarding such preference.

1 per million? Right... That is kind toooooo conservative. You are saying that chains like Whole Foods thrive on a total 300 people in the US! Let me very conservative here. Because currently raging against the 1% is all the rage now, let say 1 per 100 enjoys "placebo" food. That leaves us with about 3,000,000 people dispersing all over this huge country. Forget about logistics, how many people does it take to grow produce food the old way for 3,000,000 people? A lot! What if they have another particular taste: French cuisine! Let's make consomme http://honest-food.net/2011/01/21/wild-duck-consomme/ Jeez man, whenever I think consomme I think "waste."be

Don't belittle the "niches." They may be more numerous than you think


Now you are just trolling. I am sorry for saying

Sigh. Fine, have it your way with Apple. I would call a company that spends money on manufacturing contracts further down the supply chain to make their products a manufacturer but whatever I don't want to get into semantics because it is besides the point.

your original point was that automation lowered the quality of everything...you asked for one counterexample, I gave you two and I could give you 100 and now you say that the cars example "doesn't matter"???


Whatever, let's just use your example:

I also don't think it takes more people to bring me a gallon of milk. Before there had to be a dairy farm with lots of people manually milking cows. Milking is automated now at big factory farms so you only need a fraction of the humans for that process now....you used to need milkmen dedicated to bringing the milk fresh so it wouldn't spoil and they were limited by the small size of vehicles back then and the cost of travel....now we have large trucks that can carry a lot of milk and they can even be refrigerated...so less people. Instead of purchasing a product from individuals I purchase it from a grocery store....I go to the cashier and use self-checkout instead of the normal cashier because it is faster when I only have a single item: milk.

Lastly, I was being hyperbolic to illustrate a simple point which is a self-evident fact: automation lowers the cost and increases the efficiency everywhere it can be introduced into the market. I don't know how to answer the rest of the post about "placebo food" and whole foods because it doesn't make any sense. Reword it for clarity and I might be able to

 

[7331poas]

Now you are just trolling. I am sorry for saying

Not at all. In fact theses systems will be able to calculate the statistical likelyhood of a patient's survival (or outcome) based on a particular treatment plan based on millions of other similar cases in their database. At the same time they will be able to analyze academic literature and adjust accordingly (or not at all).

 

[ronnicus]

I am really interested in this myself. What specialties would be safest from these diagnostic algorithms? Surgery?

 

[Med Ed]

Not at all. In fact theses systems will be able to calculate the statistical likelyhood of a patient's survival (or outcome) based on a particular treatment plan based on millions of other similar cases in their database. At the same time they will be able to analyze academic literature and adjust accordingly (or not at all).

How good will they be at movie trivia?

 

[7331poas]

How good will they be at movie trivia?

Better than any human ever could be, presumably. Not much different from star trek to be honest.

 

[tskbdmnd]

@Lucca It's not contradictory at all. When one's immediate need is to have a tomato to feed, anything goes. One the same person has in excesses of everything else, they want that tomato in a very particular way.

In both of your examples, there are more people involved in production than ever. I used agriculture precisely because it's one of a field where automation has significantly displaced human involvement. Just a few hundred farmers can feed millions. It's mind-blowing. Agriculture is "there." Cars and computers are not.

Plus, Apple is a software and design company...

Apple is a phone maker. Don't let yourself get turned around there. Their primary purpose as a company is to make phones. It's literally like all they have.

ETA: You could say apple is a phone software and design company, but I don't think apple is much more than a phone brand.

 

[Med Ed]

Better than any human ever could be, presumably. Not much different from star trek to be honest.

Wow, that is truly amazing. I have to say, I'm really impressed by the future.

 

[wizzed101]

Sigh. Fine, have it your way with Apple. I would call a company that spends money on manufacturing contracts further down the supply chain to make their products a manufacturer but whatever I don't want to get into semantics because it is besides the point.

your original point was that automation lowered the quality of everything...you asked for one counterexample, I gave you two and I could give you 100 and now you say that the cars example "doesn't matter"???


Whatever, let's just use your example:

I also don't think it takes more people to bring me a gallon of milk. Before there had to be a dairy farm with lots of people manually milking cows. Milking is automated now at big factory farms so you only need a fraction of the humans for that process now....you used to need milkmen dedicated to bringing the milk fresh so it wouldn't spoil and they were limited by the small size of vehicles back then and the cost of travel....now we have large trucks that can carry a lot of milk and they can even be refrigerated...so less people. Instead of purchasing a product from individuals I purchase it from a grocery store....I go to the cashier and use self-checkout instead of the normal cashier because it is faster when I only have a single item: milk.

Lastly, I was being hyperbolic to illustrate a simple point which is a self-evident fact: automation lowers the cost and increases the efficiency everywhere it can be introduced into the market. I don't know how to answer the rest of the post about "placebo food" and whole foods because it doesn't make any sense. Reword it for clarity and I might be able to

I am not here to change how you think. You are right that it's jsut semantics. I just want to make sure that when you say manufacturing you mean "manufacturing."

But my original point was that automation lowered the quality of everything. I said

I don't know of a single profession/industry that has robots/machines/industrialization displacing the human workforce without suffering a heavy decline in quality.

As far as I know, cars and computers aren't displacing anything but actually creating more jobs. I assume that you know technologies will lead to ease of manufacturing which leads to more proliferation and more employment. Or you seriously believe that there were more people making cars in the 1900s than currently! Surely you jest!

The only industry I can think of where our technology is so advanced that human involvement is minimized but still produce enormous excess is agriculture. (this is, admittedly, a bait because I was really sure that only agriculture fits this criteria )

1000 years ago, a farmer would be lucky to have a cow. He would milk the cow, pour milk in some kind of container then head to the market to sell his product. I just used that example to show you how ludicrous you were trying to counter the previous point by saying that it took more people to make one T-model (which may not be even true)

And lastly, I never argued otherwise. What I am saying is that if there are so much "efficient" food I will suddenly crave for those then-rare-pest-infested veggies. That is just human nature. You don't need to answer my point about food. It went over your head the moment I told you that there were actually people who wanted food produced the old ways, however inferior/inefficient they were. You dismissed those people as insignificant minorities, hipsters, irrational etc... well, ok. Let's leave it as that.

Your hyperbole is just a manifestation of your attitude. Being hyperbolic with numbers can lead to very unpleasant outcomes. Imagine if you decide to matriculate into UPenn over Pritkzer because the former offers you a 300,000$ scholarship. Come September, you find out that it is actually 3,000$. You contact the school and they say they were just being hyperbolic but the point is that you have won a scholarship!!!

Not at all. In fact theses systems will be able to calculate the statistical likelyhood of a patient's survival (or outcome) based on a particular treatment plan based on millions of other similar cases in their database. At the same time they will be able to analyze academic literature and adjust accordingly (or not at all).

When a set of symptoms have 10 differential treatment plans and the most popular one is at 30%, choosing "the best" just means that the computer decides to proceed with a 70% chance of failure. I am sure you would be happy with that, being a computer guy and all. But for me, no thanks.

 

[Lucca]

I am not here to change how you think. You are right that it's jsut semantics. I just want to make sure that when you say manufacturing you mean "manufacturing."

But my original point was that automation lowered the quality of everything. I said

As far as I know, cars and computers aren't displacing anything but actually creating more jobs. I assume that you know technologies will lead to ease of manufacturing which leads to more proliferation and more employment. Or you seriously believe that there were more people making cars in the 1900s than currently! Surely you jest!

The only industry I can think of where our technology is so advanced that human involvement is minimized but still produce enormous excess is agriculture. (this is, admittedly, a bait because I was really sure that only agriculture fits this criteria )

1000 years ago, a farmer would be lucky to have a cow. He would milk the cow, pour milk in some kind of container then head to the market to sell his product. I just used that example to show you how ludicrous you were trying to counter the previous point by saying that it took more people to make one T-model (which may not be even true)

And lastly, I never argued otherwise. What I am saying is that if there are so much "efficient" food I will suddenly crave for those then-rare-pest-infested veggies. That is just human nature. You don't need to answer my point about food. It went over your head the moment I told you that there were actually people who wanted food produced the old ways, however inferior/inefficient they were. You dismissed those people as insignificant minorities, hipsters, irrational etc... well, ok. Let's leave it as that.

Your hyperbole is just a manifestation of your attitude. Being hyperbolic with numbers can lead to very unpleasant outcomes. Imagine if you decide to matriculate into UPenn over Pritkzer because the former offers you a 300,000$ scholarship. Come September, you find out that it is actually 3,000$. You contact the school and they say they were just being hyperbolic but the point is that you have won a scholarship!!!



When a set of symptoms have 10 differential treatment plans and the most popular one is at 30%, choosing "the best" just means that the computer decides to proceed with a 70% chance of failure. I am sure you would be happy with that, being a computer guy and all. But for me, no thanks.

Somebody shoot me please why do I keep replying.

1. Just because there are more people making cars by raw numbers does not mean automation has "created more jobs" in the car manufacturing industry. The point, one I already made earlier, is that it takes less people to make a single car. That is the metric by which automation is measured.

2. Agriculture is not the only example. The people who don't buy mass produced food ARE a minority. That is not an opinion, that is a fact. People are free to do whatever they want with their money but most people do not care about how something was made and just want the most affordable product.

3. Hyperbole in rhetoric to prove a point is absolutely nothing like straight-up lying to someone about scholarship money???????????????????

I am so confused that you are a person. People don't buy artisinal food because it is rare, it is because they actually believe there is some benefit in quality to doing so. Just because that quality difference is true *sometimes* does not mean that automation generically lowers quality across the board, WHICH WAS YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM. And now you are saying that it's fine if food is pest infested you want it because it is rare??????

 

[Hospitalized]

I'm trying to imagine a machine doing what an ER doctor does... Our technology is so, so far away from something that could be efficient enough it's not even fathomable.

 

[7331poas]

@Lucca is spot on. Computers have displaced jobs.

I recommend you guys watch this.

 

[wizzed101]

Somebody shoot me please why do I keep replying.

1. Just because there are more people making cars by raw numbers does not mean automation has "created more jobs" in the car manufacturing industry. The point, one I already made earlier, is that it takes less people to make a single car. That is the metric by which automation is measured.

2. Agriculture is not the only example. The people who don't buy mass produced food ARE a minority. That is not an opinion, that is a fact. People are free to do whatever they want with their money but most people do not care about how something was made and just want the most affordable product.

3. Hyperbole in rhetoric to prove a point is absolutely nothing like straight-up lying to someone about scholarship money???????????????????

I am so confused that you are a person. People don't buy artisinal food because it is rare, it is because they actually believe there is some benefit in quality to doing so. Just because that quality difference is true *sometimes* does not mean that automation generically lowers quality across the board, WHICH WAS YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM. And now you are saying that it's fine if food is pest infested you want it because it is rare??????

there are more people making cars by raw numbers does not mean automation has "created more jobs" in the car manufacturing industry

1. Does not compute. I am sorry I overestimated your knowledge in economics...
2. There is a significant difference between 1 per 100 and one per 1,000,000. No, you can't "rhetoric" it. A market of 3,000,000 out of a population of 300,000,000 is indeed a "minority," but still a significant number. Again, those people can be choosy about their food because they can afford it, not only food but other goods too. When you bring everyone up to that level, a new mass demand, aka fancy food, will arise. Technology will always play catch up.
Ex: case in point, in some region of Africa, only a minority has access to clean water. Based on your reasoning, it will stay that way: people die and will always die; the parents die of some random easily preventable disease so their kids should expect to live that way too.
3. What point? As a self-proclaimed "scientist" you should know that there is such a thing as extensive property, right?

My original claim is that in void of the human touch quality will fail. Here is the thing: all technological advances are to serve human. If they don't like the results, the products are inferior. And yes, to the pest-infested food. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend?

If you want to argue about quality in absolute terms. Sure! It doesn't matter what innovation/breakthrough are being made. At the end of the day, the delivery is up to engineers and engineering is full of compromises and very goal oriented. Take the iphone, the iphone 7 is basically a downgrade due to the simple fact that it does not have a headphone jack.

Cars: electric cars. That is the most stupid concept ever, technology wise. What exactly is the goal of such thing? It doesn't save energy. They are telling me that going from fossil fuel -> heat-> work -> electricity -> work is somehow more efficient that fossil fuel -> heat -> work. LAMO
But here is why: Because we human demand the perception that the car is green and "efficient" regardless of whether it is true or not.

 

[efle]

Lol what. That's not how electric cars are "green" ...

Normally lots of energy is wasted when driving around, eg braking from high speeds. We don't have a way to capture that energy and turn it into more gas. We DO have a way to turn it into electricity.

If you drive 20 miles per gallon and I drive 40, my rate of damaging emissions is lower than yours. I'm greener.

Not even gonna touch any of the other nonsense

 

[wizzed101]

Sure, pal. I give 100% (!!!) efficiency from electricity -> work

Still, LAMO. I don't think you understand what I was referring too.

Lol what. That's not how electric cars are "green" ...

Normally lots of energy is wasted when driving around, eg braking from high speeds. We don't have a way to capture that energy and turn it into more gas. We DO have a way to turn it into electricity.

If you drive 20 miles per gallon and I drive 40, my rate of damaging emissions is lower than yours. I'm greener.

Not even gonna touch any of the other nonsense

 

[efle]

Sure, pal. I give 100% (!!!) efficiency from electricity -> work

Still, LAMO. I don't think you understand what I was referring too.

Again, that's not why net efficiency increases. If you input equivalent energies (say 20 gallons fuel) and one system dispels large amounts of the energy into friction while the other reclaims it as work to charge a battery, the latter can go much further before needing to refuel. Don't know how to make it any more clear.

 

[wizzed101]

Again, that's not why net efficiency increases. If you input equivalent energies (say 20 gallons fuel) and one system dispels large amounts of the energy into friction while the other reclaims it as work to charge a battery, the latter can go much further before needing to refuel. Don't know how to make it any more clear.

You still don't understand. I am not talking about "equivalent energies" input as in 2mJ into a conventional engine vs electric engine. I am talking about using fossil fuel vs electricity. It doesn't matter how you implement it, electricity has already lost the efficiency war.

BTW, when you say "friction" I assume you meant those originated from moving parts. Because if you meant those arisen from aerodynamics, then I am sorry I am not an expert in witchcraft.

 

[efle]

Cars: electric cars. That is the most stupid concept ever, technology wise. What exactly is the goal of such thing? It doesn't save energy. They are telling me that going from fossil fuel -> heat-> work -> electricity -> work is somehow more efficient that fossil fuel -> heat -> work. LAMO
But here is why: Because we human demand the perception that the car is green and "efficient" regardless of whether it is true or not.

I am not talking about "equivalent energies" input as in 2mJ into a conventional engine vs electric engine.

Let me try to break it down one more time then.

The argument for electric car efficiency is not the process you stated above.

Here are the two processes:

For gas, you input 2mJ. 1mJ is spent moving the car, and during braking 1mJ is lost to friction/heat.

For hybrid or electric, you input 2mJ. 1mJ is spent moving the car, and during braking 0.5mJ goes into charging a battery, while 0.5mJ is lost to friction/heat.

In the second case, you've reclaimed 0.5mJ energy that is lost to heat/friction in the first. This is what allows much better efficiency per input energy.

I mean, you can't honestly believe everyone is too stupid to notice hybrid cars violating thermodynamics? That it's all a bunch of falsehoods about higher efficiency? Did you honestly think that?

 

[wizzed101]

I was under the impression that the mobs want this meme electric car because they care about the environment, you know, the big picture. Now you are telling me that all they care about is terminal efficiency. OKAY THEN. Let's start with getting rid of this little thing called 'catalytic converter' and BAM terminal efficiency of a conventional car can shoot up to 60-80 mpg!

"Everyone" probably doesn't know what the heck thermodynamics is. And friction due to moving part is like minuscule compared to that caused by aerodynamics. So yea, I don't care about moving part because in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. BUT of course, I will buy an electric car over a conventional one because I think the design is cool and sleek. That's all.

 

[efle]

I was under the impression that the mobs want this meme electric car because they care about the environment, you know, the big picture. Now you are telling me that all they care about is terminal efficiency. OKAY THEN. Let's start with getting rid of this little thing called 'catalytic converter' and BAM terminal efficiency of a conventional car can shoot up to 60-80 mpg!

I like the hybrid I drive because it's efficient. Don't know how many people are motivated by the environmental bit, but your post wasn't about car emissions actually impacting the environment. It was about how electric cars can't physically be more efficient, because you didn't understand what's actually supposed to boost efficiency in a hybrid/electric.

And friction due to moving part is like minuscule compared to that caused by aerodynamics.

Are you under the impression that cars slow down mostly from air resistance? You should try that pedal on the left some time, turns out you can slow down a lot faster when you use friction to make the moving parts stop moving really quick. You lose a TON of energy from braking. That's why city MPGs are generally much worse than highway.

 

[wizzed101]

When I talked about efficiency I meant how many lbs of coal/crude oil is needed to run a vehicle not how many gallon of gasoline/kW of electricity. Because ultimately, that is what matters.

If the environment does not matter, the design of conventional engine will be much more efficient. Who knows what people can come up with. I was told that 60 mpg can be easily achieved by revisiting current designs. Let's not go into the logistics of supplying a electric/hybrid cars.

I concede friction. I can't find a formal source to back it up. I was probably wrong though. But again, it doesn't matter.

 

[efle]

When I talked about efficiency I meant how many lbs of coal/crude oil is needed to run a vehicle not how many gallon of gasoline/kW of electricity. Because ultimately, that is what matters.

That move doesn't get you anywhere. The same amount of crude is needed in either case to get me my 20 gallons of gas. But the hybrid goes a lot further on it / is more efficient, because it can capture, store and reuse energy normally lost to friction/heat along the way.

If the environment does not matter, the design of conventional engine will be much more efficient. Who knows what people can come up with. I was told that 60 mpg can be easily achieved by revisiting current designs. Let's not go into the logistics of supplying a electric/hybrid cars.

A hybrid has a conventional engine in it. Anything you do to improve a conventional engine mpg will improve the hybrid too. It just has the additional capacity to recapture energy while slowing, so the hybrid always outperforms in terms of efficiency.

 

[wizzed101]

How do you think we generate electricity? And without a conventional engine design, magic?

Wow. you buy into that meme.

The real breakthrough would be one that make the catalytic converter operate at much much lower temperate. Then we talk efficiency without neglecting the environment! Now instead of spending research money on that, we are trying to make the meme car more affordable.

 

[efle]

How do you think we generate electricity? And without a conventional engine design, magic?

Wow. you buy into that meme.

The real breakthrough would be one that make the catalytic converter operate at much much lower temperate. Then we talk efficiency without neglecting the environment! Now instead of spending research money on that, we are trying to make the meme car more affordable.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking about how a purely electric car would be beneficial? To an individual, the cost of charging is much less than fueling. If you mean regarding the environment, there are two answers. Firstly for the ~1/3rd of power we get from nuclear + renewables, it's obviously better since there are no emissions involved at all going from source -> electric car travel. For the ~2/3rd of power we get from coal and gas, energy generation at the plants is much more efficient than the processes of refining gas and burning in cars, so electric cars end up being something like 50% better in emissions per mile even when charged based on carbon-burning. This stuff is very easy to google if you want to learn abut it. It's not a bunch of propaganda and lies.

Hybrid/electric cars aren't a meme...?

 

[wizzed101]

I don't know mane. I googled "carbon footprint of electric cars" and got bombarded by propaganda from both sides. Too lazy/ can't find a serious peer reviewed article. You are right that it is easy to google what you want to hear, from either side.

HOWEVER, I'm highly doubtful of your claim that electric plants are "much more" efficient.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html

Take 3,412 Btu and divide by each number. The efficiency of coal and petroleum and nuclear is about 33% while natural gas is about 50%. In contrast, diesel engines have ~40% and gasoline engines have between 20%-37%. The conversion is basically heat->work->electricity. Surely, electricity -> work cannot be more than 100%, right?

I am genuinely curious about where does this "50% better emission" come from?

And crude oils are not only used to make gasoline, btw....

 

[efle]

I don't know mane. I googled "carbon footprint of electric cars" and got bombarded by propaganda from both sides. Too lazy/ can't find a serious peer reviewed article. You are right that it is easy to google what you want to hear, from either side.

HOWEVER, I'm highly doubtful of your claim that electric plants are "much more" efficient.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html

Take 3,412 Btu and divide by each number. The efficiency of coal and petroleum and nuclear is about 33% while natural gas is about 50%. In contrast, diesel engines have ~40% and gasoline engines have between 20%-37%. The conversion is basically heat->work->electricity. Surely, electricity -> work cannot be more than 100%, right?

I am genuinely curious about where does this "50% better emission" come from?

And crude oils are not only used to make gasoline, btw....

Top google hit for me was US Department of Energy. Electric is a 4.8k CO2 lb equivalent, gasoline is 11.4k, comes out to ~42%, so actually more than a 50% improvement.

Gasoline is refined from crude. Lots of other stuff comes out of crude too, but gas is the biggest thing.

 

[wizzed101]

You win. I can't argue with Argonne National Lab

I would like to make a comment though. The way they calculate the carbon emission results in electric vehicles having close carbon foot print to that of hybrid (4.8 vs 6.2). The assumption they made was that hybrid has 44 mpg while conventional has 24.3. As I mentioned before, the conventional vehicles are hampered greatly by the catalytic converter. If they can find a way to drastically lower the operating temperature of that thing, conventional cars can produce much less carbon foot print.

 

[tskbdmnd]

And technology will only bring more options, not less so I don't know what is your point regarding such preference.

Strange statement, especially if you're talking about agriculture.

 

[wizzed101]

Strange statement, especially if you're talking about agriculture.

I am not sure what you mean. That is pretty self-evident. Unless of course, you keep shopping at Walmart.

Car is an easier example. We used to have T-model and ??????

Edit: http://goop.com/recipes/gps-morning-smoothie/

Ingredient list:

Spoiler

1 cup almond milk

1 tablespoon almond butter

1 teaspoon coconut oil

2 tablespoons vanilla mushroom protein powder

1 teaspoon maca

1 teaspoon ashwagandha

1 teaspoon ho shou wu

1 teaspoon cordyceps

1 teaspoon moon dust of choice:Action Dust to soothe overworked muscles, Beauty Dust for a glowy complexion and healthy hair, Brain Dust to combat mental fogginess,Goodnight Dust when sleep has been evasive, Sex Dust, for, you know, and Spirit Dust to get that extrasensory perception going.

pinch Himalayan sea salt

pinch vanilla powder (optional)

Without modern technology, how could her goddess Gwyneth Paltrow make these in her kitchen every morning?

 

[tskbdmnd]

I am not sure what you mean. That is pretty self-evident. Unless of course, you keep shopping at Walmart.

Car is an easier example. We used to have T-model and ??????

Edit: http://goop.com/recipes/gps-morning-smoothie/

Ingredient list:

Spoiler

1 cup almond milk

1 tablespoon almond butter

1 teaspoon coconut oil

2 tablespoons vanilla mushroom protein powder

1 teaspoon maca

1 teaspoon ashwagandha

1 teaspoon ho shou wu

1 teaspoon cordyceps

1 teaspoon moon dust of choice:Action Dust to soothe overworked muscles, Beauty Dust for a glowy complexion and healthy hair, Brain Dust to combat mental fogginess,Goodnight Dust when sleep has been evasive, Sex Dust, for, you know, and Spirit Dust to get that extrasensory perception going.

pinch Himalayan sea salt

pinch vanilla powder (optional)

Without modern technology, how could her goddess Gwyneth Paltrow make these in her kitchen every morning?

United states produces corn right now. That's about it. Even the species of corn is pretty much the same everywhere. You don't grow other stuff because the technology and laws for corn are too good.

 

[mistafab]

Where the hell did this thread go?

 

[Psai]

The biggest problem in inpatient medicine isn't diagnosis. That's usually the easy part, especially when the patient has been coming to your hospital for years. The hard part of medicine is all the bs documentation and placement issues.

Get me a computer that can force the patient to take their meds at home, can look up information for me without my having to sift through a million notes, write a good discharge summary and find some skilled nursing facility beds for my patients.

 

[philosonista]

Those of you who are doubting the vast potential of AI are basing it off of what you have seen. Scientific progress and productivity is growing exponentially in many fields. Yes, people will always shove in amateur tech into medicine in an attempt to make money. It doesn't mean we have no reason to think AI will not grow exponentially. So your inductive argument is null. Philosophers of science have already dismantled these sorts of arguments. I'm just applying it to this case.

I neither care nor anticipate that algorithms could take over in this era. I only think in the very long term.

 

[Lawpy]

Those of you who are doubting the vast potential of AI are basing it off of what you have seen. Scientific progress and productivity is growing exponentially in many fields. Yes, people will always shove in amateur tech into medicine in an attempt to make money. It doesn't mean we have no reason to think AI will not grow exponentially. So your inductive argument is null. Philosophers of science have already dismantled these sorts of arguments. I'm just applying it to this case.

I neither care nor anticipate that algorithms could take over in this era. I only think in the very long term.

Very long term being hundreds, if not thousands, of years from now.

 

[philosonista]

My experience is that I've seen many new and trending products, software etc. get sold to administrators by salesmen that then attempt to force its usage even though it makes zero sense in day to day usage. Would a collaborator who is getting a consulting fee really tell a company their product is redundant, useless, should be scrapped?

Also these collaborators are often academics which aren't always practicing the reality of day to day clinical practice.

You are seeing the slimy commercial interests who have vested interest in pre-maturely and poorly introducing technology for the sake of money.

I met dozens of biostatisticians this summer, and heard quite a few times that they work with physicians closely, and advised me to do the same if I pursue biostats. Of course, this was n = ~30 at an ivy league institution, but why would it be different elsewhere in academia?

 

[philosonista]

Very long term being hundreds, if not thousands, of years from now.

Good thing that timescale is the one I care about for my career impact then.

 

[philosonista]

Perhaps you should develop an AI capable of detecting sarcasm.



Reference?

SDN needs a standardized means by which to convey sarcasm, as they do on Twitch. People are ***holes on here too often to differentiate.

Source? I attended dozens of seminars this summer by biostatisicians, many of which were genomics speakers. I could not recall specific names if I tried, though they were all either from Dana Farber or Harvard.

 

[wizzed101]

Simple scenario. You have a set of symptoms with 100 possible diagnosis.
1st choice: 40% of the time
2nd best: 4%
...
100th: ??

How do you justify entrusting a human life to a machine knowing that there is 60% chance that it will harm them?

 

[efle]

Simple scenario. You have a set of symptoms with 100 possible diagnosis.
1st choice: 40% of the time
2nd best: 4%
...
100th: ??

How do you justify entrusting a human life to a machine knowing that there is 60% chance that it will harm them?

Im not in the AI corner but as devils advocate its a pretty easy justification: 60% is the minimal error rate, any human will be worse. How can you justify diagnosing by any other means when it would only make the odds even less favorable ?

 

[wizzed101]

I don't know. But the question is not on a physician. Maybe he's an expert that is 100% correct on whatever his diagnosis is. Not all physicians are equal. But that is beside the point.

So if the answer is "yes. I will design a machine that will fail 60% resulting in great harms to patients." Well, good luck.

 

[DrBowtie]

You are seeing the slimy commercial interests who have vested interest in pre-maturely and poorly introducing technology for the sake of money.

I met dozens of biostatisticians this summer, and heard quite a few times that they work with physicians closely, and advised me to do the same if I pursue biostats. Of course, this was n = ~30 at an ivy league institution, but why would it be different elsewhere in academia?

Let's be clear. I use AI in its current state, Computer Assisted Detection for Mammography. The amount of time it took to get that product to market and pass FDA approval and get disseminated into clinical practice was long. It is also an almost completely useless product. If we biopsied everything it marked, women would look like Swiss cheese.

Will it get better? Sure it will, but it's a big jump from the lab to clinical practice.

 

[Lawpy]

Good thing that timescale is the one I care about for my career impact then.

Yep. Because the short-term career impact (i.e. <<100 years from now) is beneficial at best and unaffected at worst.

SDN needs a standardized means by which to convey sarcasm, as they do on Twitch. People are ***holes on here too often to differentiate.

I guess two emoticons and a robot picture didn't make it clear!

 

[JustaDO]

Those of you who are doubting the vast potential of AI are basing it off of what you have seen.

The very same can be said those who believe in the vast potential of AI are based off of what is hyped.

Theory and ideas can be hyped into perfection, execution is where things become tricky.

 

[Med Ed]

Source? I attended dozens of seminars this summer by biostatisicians, many of which were genomics speakers. I could not recall specific names if I tried, though they were all either from Dana Farber or Harvard.

Fail.

 

[Med Ed]

SDN needs a standardized means by which to convey sarcasm, as they do on Twitch. People are ***holes on here too often to differentiate.

Let us review what you thought was serious:

Superintelligent robots can solve all these problems easily!

 

[dafuturesurgeon]

read this book: The Laws of Medicine

 

[terra330]

Planes effectively fly themselves at this point. Heck, moving to a drone based commercial flight system might even save tons of money for airlines.

But there will always be pilots because people trust humans over machines. They need to see the pilot when they step on the plane.

Same will be true for doctors.

I wouldn't count on that. Future generations are going to be interacting with computers more and more, and eventually they'll have no trouble trusting them.

 

[tskbdmnd]

Those of you who are doubting the vast potential of AI are basing it off of what you have seen. Scientific progress and productivity is growing exponentially in many fields. Yes, people will always shove in amateur tech into medicine in an attempt to make money. It doesn't mean we have no reason to think AI will not grow exponentially. So your inductive argument is null. Philosophers of science have already dismantled these sorts of arguments. I'm just applying it to this case.

I neither care nor anticipate that algorithms could take over in this era. I only think in the very long term.

Computer science is overrated. Even if we can make an AI for $X billion, we have enough intelligent beings. They're called humans. If you give them money, they'll maintain themselves. If one of them can't work, there are plenty of more to take the place. If AI was as big as you nerds say, IBM should be making more money off of watson right? Nobody cares about watson. Nobody cares about AI.