NIH funding cuts

[CurbYourExpectations]

---

Members do not see this ad.

With regards to what you said, are you saying that you do rural work or you chill in an academic site giving observations?

 

[ramsesthenice]

With regards to what you said, are you saying that you do rural work or you chill in an academic site giving observations?

A little bit of both. Spend about 3-4 days per month at one of the rural satellites so definitely have some hands on rural work and its definitely a good reality check with respect to coordinating care outside of a fully integrated center. Not to say its seamless at main by any stretch. But many of the oncology and surgery groups are staffed by people who rotate between sites and tracking them down often takes a few calls. Little things like that add up and stress the need for efficiency.

What I think we should do more of is remote consultation. I do mostly GI. Typical case: someone comes gets a scope in the community that shows cancer in the mid rectum (ie, can't palpate it). MRI and CT are done locally and good quality. They live 3.5 hours from here. What can I tell them in person that I can't tell them over the computer?

 

[CurbYourExpectations]

Great take for multiple sides. And, while I don't disagree with anyone, I hope rural docs see that academic docs are looking at how things are controlled without them on site.

 

[RickyScott]

Like with anything, some RadOncs overuse telehealth... One prominent hospital network searches Epic radiology reports for new bone mets and then schedules video or phone consults to prescribe SBRT

I once asked radiology to flag brain Mets and cord compressions for me, because we were having a rash of Friday afternoon consults and the hospital was getting upset about weekend treatments. I was told that this sort of thing is illegal? Not sure if they were full of sh—

 

[evilbooyaa]

Interesting take. Rural exemption for TH would include the ability for ROs to talk to patients in areas without access, which would incorporate many people wouldn't it? I would think it would help patients in actual need to be seen by docs. Exemption of direct supervision in a grossly oversupplied field just allows for those with bargaining power to have an advantage. I assume you don't think direct supervision should just be avoided in rural areas, sorry if wrong. What am I missing? Maybe a lot.

Having a good, motivated Rad Onc who can go staff a center for 2-3 days/week in a way that is sufficiently profitable for the center and work to develop that practice to keep patients local to their home instead of hiring a rotating crap locums doc and having most patients go to the academic facility down the street is a good thing.

Getting septo and octogenerians who don't really know what they're doing to ACTUALLY RETIRE and stop doing bs locums is better for patient care, IMO.

That's not to say all community docs are bad - vast majority of them are good. A few are excellent. A few are bad. Same distribution as those in 'academics'.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

I once asked radiology to flag brain Mets and cord compressions for me, because we were having a rash of Friday afternoon consults and the hospital was getting upset about weekend treatments. I was told that this sort of thing is illegal? Not sure if they were full of sh—

Feels like a surefire HIPAA violation.

 

[CurbYourExpectations]

Having a good, motivated Rad Onc who can go staff a center for 2-3 days/week in a way that is sufficiently profitable for the center and work to develop that practice to keep patients local to their home instead of hiring a rotating crap locums doc and having most patients go to the academic facility down the street is a good thing.

Getting septo and octogenerians who don't really know what they're doing to ACTUALLY RETIRE and stop doing bs locums is better for patient care, IMO.

That's not to say all community docs are bad - vast majority of them are good. A few are excellent. A few are bad. Same distribution as those in 'academics'.

Radiation oncologists don't retire, but they should, there are bad young docs too. But locums are a normal thing in a field, I have had many locums anesthesiologists and medoncs help with care for patients in a city. But let's kill locums for rural facilities in our field.

Is the answer to have a doc that works in a rural area two days a week and then drives back to their major city? What would be better than a RadOnc who integrates themselves with the community and provides care all days of the week? Do we even need a RadOnc there at all? Are we even talking about just rural centers?
Maybe you and I could just run it from the comfort of our desks from home or in a big hospital in a city. Because that is what is needed in this field, not better physics oversight of machines, not better training, and not recruitment of docs who want to work and live in rural areas.

And I don't think telehealth is wrong, I use it and it's good for patients. I just find it interesting that there are people pushing for most of the billing related stuff in the field to not actually require a radiation oncologist on site.

Another good read from our friend, Simul:

We Should Not Be Routinely Doing Telemed For Radiation Weekly Management

Simul was wrong. First time since '09

radiationeconomics.substack.com

 

[OTN]

Radiation oncologists don't retire, but they should, there are bad young docs too. But locums are a normal thing in a field, I have had many locums anesthesiologists and medoncs help with care for patients in a city. But let's kill locums for rural facilities in our field.

Is the answer to have a doc that works in a rural area two days a week and then drives back to their major city? What would be better than a RadOnc who integrates themselves with the community and provides care all days of the week? Do we even need a RadOnc there at all? Are we even talking about just rural centers?
Maybe you and I could just run it from the comfort of our desks from home or in a big hospital in a city. Because that is what is needed in this field, not better physics oversight of machines, not better training, and not recruitment of docs who want to work and live in rural areas.

And I don't think telehealth is wrong, I use it and it's good for patients. I just find it interesting that there are people pushing for most of the billing related stuff in the field to not actually require a radiation oncologist on site.

Another good read from our friend, Simul:

We Should Not Be Routinely Doing Telemed For Radiation Weekly Management

Simul was wrong. First time since '09

radiationeconomics.substack.com

Speak for yourself I'm gonna retire good n' early

 

[CurbYourExpectations]

Same, all this stuff definitely makes me feel like I should save up some money. But me arguing isn't going to change anything, we all have our biases. lol

 

[evilbooyaa]

Radiation oncologists don't retire, but they should, there are bad young docs too. But locums are a normal thing in a field, I have had many locums anesthesiologists and medoncs help with care for patients in a city. But let's kill locums for rural facilities in our field.

Is the answer to have a doc that works in a rural area two days a week and then drives back to their major city? What would be better than a RadOnc who integrates themselves with the community and provides care all days of the week? Do we even need a RadOnc there at all? Are we even talking about just rural centers?
Maybe you and I could just run it from the comfort of our desks from home or in a big hospital in a city. Because that is what is needed in this field, not better physics oversight of machines, not better training, and not recruitment of docs who want to work and live in rural areas.

And I don't think telehealth is wrong, I use it and it's good for patients. I just find it interesting that there are people pushing for most of the billing related stuff in the field to not actually require a radiation oncologist on site.

Another good read from our friend, Simul:

We Should Not Be Routinely Doing Telemed For Radiation Weekly Management

Simul was wrong. First time since '09

radiationeconomics.substack.com

In regards to bolded: An ideal would be a Rad Onc who likes the community in question and wants to stay there. However, most departments would rather not pay the extra money that is necessary and instead perma-hire rotating locums. Locums rates in other fields are 2-4x what a day-to-day pay is for a permanent job. Can we honestly say the same in Rad Onc?

I agree with you that tele-health OTVs should not be a routinely done thing.

I do think having a mechanism for it when someone feels it is medically appropriate, so as to avoid missing out on an OTV charge, is not an unreasonable thing.

 

[CurbYourExpectations]

In regards to bolded: An ideal would be a Rad Onc who likes the community in question and wants to stay there. However, most departments would rather not pay the extra money that is necessary and instead perma-hire rotating locums. Locums rates in other fields are 2-4x what a day-to-day pay is for a permanent job. Can we honestly say the same in Rad Onc?

I agree with you that tele-health OTVs should not be a routinely done thing.

I do think having a mechanism for it when someone feels it is medically appropriate, so as to avoid missing out on an OTV charge, is not an unreasonable thing.

Why are locums rates so low in this field? Have always wondered that, but never did locums, even though the amount of emails they send me you would think I do them constantly. The arbitrary connection of OTV covering so much of the billing is also bewildering.

Is anyone actually having trouble seeing a patient at an OTV one of the 3-5 hours a week they are in the hospital around their time of treatment?

Out of curiosity, do you think the groups pushing it will use it just for the weird off occasion or is this competition driven? And do you think facilities will make it a requirement and limit the need for physicians to be involved in a cancer center location?

Probably doesn't matter at the end because at the end of the day, nothing I think matters. The sky is always falling in radiation oncology.

 

[HolySmokes]

Is anyone actually having trouble seeing a patient at an OTV one of the 3-5 hours a week they are in the hospital around their time of treatment?

More often it's OTV day on fraction 5, 10, etc and the therapists accidentally send the patient out without being seen. It's nice to have an option for telehealth rather than making them to drive back in just so I can get my OTV charge.

 

[OTN]

Why are locums rates so low in this field? Have always wondered that, but never did locums, even though the amount of emails they send me you would think I do them constantly. The arbitrary connection of OTV covering so much of the billing is also bewildering.

Is anyone actually having trouble seeing a patient at an OTV one of the 3-5 hours a week they are in the hospital around their time of treatment?

Out of curiosity, do you think the groups pushing it will use it just for the weird off occasion or is this competition driven? And do you think facilities will make it a requirement and limit the need for physicians to be involved in a cancer center location?

Locums rates are low because there are a lot of radiation oncologists looking for locums work.

 

[yesmaster]

Lots of residents doing locums too. Obviously there aren’t enough residents per many chairs - can you blame those residents for ditching scut unpaid jobs in their chair’s lab or publishing another DEI paper and doing locums instead?

 

[RickyScott]

 

[medgator]

Speak for yourself I'm gonna retire good n' early

You and me both, man

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

You and me both, man

How long have y'all be doing it? I've been at it 5 years, and really don't have to work much longer (no kids).

 

[medgator]

How long have y'all be doing it? I've been at it 5 years, and really don't have to work much longer (no kids).

Longer...
kids + a few big wci mistakes

 

[Lamount]

Feels like a surefire HIPAA violation.

I have some colleagues that are developing a nodule clinic and have gotten bye-in from hospital admin to support reflexive referrals for incidental-omas found on chest CTs. For brain mets, it could be something as simple as "consider urgent rad onc referral

I once asked radiology to flag brain Mets and cord compressions for me, because we were having a rash of Friday afternoon consults and the hospital was getting upset about weekend treatments. I was told that this sort of thing is illegal? Not sure if they were full of sh—

If there is a some recent egregious case where treatment was delayed because someone sat on the results... you can try to pull the "root cause analysis" card on the hospital admin, and propose that a "brain/spine tumor team" be notified of urgent MRI badness in real time. Some admins are the "sweep it under the rug" sort, but you may encounter some who are looking to ascend the leadership tree and need some more meat in the "Quality Improvement" section of their CV. -worth a shot.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

I have some colleagues that are developing a nodule clinic and have gotten bye-in from hospital admin to support reflexive referrals for incidental-omas found on chest CTs. For brain mets, it could be something as simple as "consider urgent rad onc referral



If there is a some recent egregious case where treatment was delayed because someone sat on the results... you can try to pull the "root cause analysis" card on the hospital admin, and propose that a "brain/spine tumor team" be notified of urgent MRI badness in real time. Some admins are the "sweep it under the rug" sort, but you may encounter some who are looking to ascend the leadership tree and need some more meat in the "Quality Improvement" section of their CV. -worth a shot.

I think if there's a referral to you, it's all good. Most systems have abnormal mammo pathways. Leads to biopsy and referral to a breast surgeon. Many have done the same with lung nodules with referral to pulm. Doing a similar setup with suspected brain mets makes sense, but just getting a name from a radiologist and combing through charts before you're "technically" involved in the care of the patient is a bad look.

I know of a surgeon who was fired for doing exactly that.

 

[CurbYourExpectations]

I think if there's a referral to you, it's all good. Most systems have abnormal mammo pathways. Leads to biopsy and referral to a breast surgeon. Many have done the same with lung nodules with referral to pulm. Doing a similar setup with suspected brain mets makes sense, but just getting a name from a radiologist and combing through charts before you're "technically" involved in the care of the patient is a bad look.

I know of a surgeon who was fired for doing exactly that.

What about the scenario @A_DeMichele was talking about where they are using EPIC databases to do it?

 

[Mandelin Rain]

What about the scenario @A_DeMichele was talking about where they are using EPIC databases to do it?

I can't imagine it's legal.

Could an endocrinologist do an EPIC search of HgbA1c >7 and setup consults for all those patients?

 

[communitydoc13]

What about the scenario @A_DeMichele was talking about where they are using EPIC databases to do it?

Seems a little fishy to me. Not just fishy, but bad. I'm not worried about a HIPAA violation in terms of access to medical records (there is a QA stipulation as well as any MD involved with patient care (even if just curb sided) is OK looking at the records).

The difference in the other scenarios is that there is an effort to establish a "best next step" for the patient based on physicians already involved with the patient's care.

Many places (even mine) have an incidentaloma pulmonary process with review in a Multi-D setting. But, the result is a recommendation that is then funneled through existing providers (PCP primarily or pulmonologist or even hospitalist in some circumstances).

The test results alone are not enough to establish a next best step and the process of culling data points and seeking personal referral will be damaging to patients some fraction of the time (e.g. patient on hospice for ESRD with incidentaloma of pretty much any sort, or patient who has communicated that they want no further medical interventions under any circumstance).

There are times where a consultation is in fact doing some harm. There are many times where a consultation is wasteful. (For you DOGE lovers).

 

[ramsesthenice]

Seems a little fishy to me. Not just fishy, but bad. I'm not worried about a HIPAA violation in terms of access to medical records (there is a QA stipulation as well as any MD involved with patient care (even if just curb sided) is OK looking at the records).

The difference in the other scenarios is that there is an effort to establish a "best next step" for the patient based on physicians already involved with the patient's care.

Many places (even mine) have an incidentaloma pulmonary process with review in a Multi-D setting. But, the result is a recommendation that is then funneled through existing providers (PCP primarily or pulmonologist or even hospitalist in some circumstances).

The test results alone are not enough to establish a next best step and the process of culling data points and seeking personal referral will be damaging to patients some fraction of the time (e.g. patient on hospice for ESRD with incidentaloma of pretty much any sort, or patient who has communicated that they want no further medical interventions under any circumstance).

There are times where a consultation is in fact doing some harm. There are many times where a consultation is wasteful. (For you DOGE lovers).

I don’t think this would necessarily run afoul with HIPPA if the radiologist interpreting the scan consulted through an established channel. It’s not that different from the Hospitalist calling onc who then calls us.

But I completely agree this would have a huge potential for waste and I’m not sure how practical it is. Would the radiologist reflexively call us and neurosurgery? I can also see them picking up known brain Mets that were imaged elsewhere and not discussed in a piss poor ED H&P that don’t need any therapy. I also just think it’s good form for the primary team to make sure they want to do anything or discuss options before having a strange doc show up. I still occasionally get the inpatient consult where the primary team called me but forgot to tell the patient they had cancer in their brain and it’s…awkward.

 

[radiation]

Its way easier just to tell the radiologist to document it as a critical result necessitating further clinical evaluation and have them to reach out to the ordering physician about a critical result like they would for a PE, stroke. etc. Then the ordering physician has the hot potato and the onus is on them to consult the appropriate services. If you have inroads with those ordering physicians and make yourself easily available to take the hot potato then that achieves the same result without getting admin involved

 

[A_DeMichele]

Seems a little fishy to me. Not just fishy, but bad. I'm not worried about a HIPAA violation in terms of access to medical records (there is a QA stipulation as well as any MD involved with patient care (even if just curb sided) is OK looking at the records).

The difference in the other scenarios is that there is an effort to establish a "best next step" for the patient based on physicians already involved with the patient's care.

Many places (even mine) have an incidentaloma pulmonary process with review in a Multi-D setting. But, the result is a recommendation that is then funneled through existing providers (PCP primarily or pulmonologist or even hospitalist in some circumstances).

The test results alone are not enough to establish a next best step and the process of culling data points and seeking personal referral will be damaging to patients some fraction of the time (e.g. patient on hospice for ESRD with incidentaloma of pretty much any sort, or patient who has communicated that they want no further medical interventions under any circumstance).

There are times where a consultation is in fact doing some harm. There are many times where a consultation is wasteful. (For you DOGE lovers).

These "spine SBRT programs" work through PCP, who is tasked to place a RadOnc consult in EMR once actionable results are found by software

 

[Lamount]

I think if there's a referral to you, it's all good. Most systems have abnormal mammo pathways. Leads to biopsy and referral to a breast surgeon. Many have done the same with lung nodules with referral to pulm. Doing a similar setup with suspected brain mets makes sense, but just getting a name from a radiologist and combing through charts before you're "technically" involved in the care of the patient is a bad look.

I know of a surgeon who was fired for doing exactly that.

Agree 100%. You def need a formal referral… but it is a reasonable ask to set such a thing up.

 

[drowsy12]

 

[xrt123]

In 2008-09 my NIH F30 was taken away due to an economic crisis! If you went into medicine after date than you don't care enough about things in medicine and you are a bad person! You should be awake all night and angry like me!

Just kidding. I don't like to fuel the fire of irrationality. My stomach is not churning. This is why I love AI. You can ask what are the pros and cons to an individual point (i.e. cutting funding) and get a reasonable response. It is crazy how people with 30+ years of formal education can not come close to the educated response of Grok/ChatGPT in terms of making good political, educational or philosophical points.

 

[communitydoc13]

It is crazy how people with 30+ years of formal education can not come close to the educated response of Grok/ChatGPT in terms of making good political, educational or philosophical points.

I would be very cautious regarding this point.

The inputs matter...bigly. The trust in AI to provide definitive answers based on a few discrete data points is already showing itself to be a bad position...a human audit of DOGEs work itself is evidence of this. An input such as "probationary" needs to be contextualized...and AI does a shi&&y job of contextualizing.

Regarding the post in question. Lets look at some inputs that are needed for context and reasonable human assessment of the situation.

The original x-poster is at Columbia University. While blanket cuts to NIH infrastructural funding have been floated, and federal cuts to many programs have occurred in the past in response to financial crises...this is not what is going on with this PI...who happens to be a PI at an institution that is being targeted by the present administration (and was targeted by congress before he became president) for "antisemitism".

Here, antisemitism (which is of course real) is in quotes as the antisemitic quality of Columbia University is absolutely a disputable thing (I do have some human, inside knowledge into this. Also, my own biases, education, personal exposures, knowledge of student demographics at Columbia etc. shape my human perception of this issue).

What would have to be a remarkable stretch is to connect this PIs research to antisemitism as such, either personal or institutional. So why is he being a subject of collective punishment? I think this is the crux of Thomas' post.

Does AI think like this? I don't think so. Inputs are discretized still. Reasonableness of the LLM output is sort of the goal, and can be given a statistical sort of definition, so yes, I believe that AI may be more "reasonable" than most persons...but is it approaching being correct about difficult things, like this PIs funding?

I don't think so.

 

[xrt123]

I would be very cautious regarding this point.

The inputs matter...bigly. The trust in AI to provide definitive answers based on a few discrete data points is already showing itself to be a bad position...a human audit of DOGEs work itself is evidence of this. An input such as "probationary" needs to be contextualized...and AI does a shi&&y job of contextualizing.

Regarding the post in question. Lets look at some inputs that are needed for context and reasonable human assessment of the situation.

The original x-poster is at Columbia University. While blanket cuts to NIH infrastructural funding have been floated, and federal cuts to many programs have occurred in the past in response to financial crises...this is not what is going on with this PI...who happens to be a PI at an institution that is being targeted by the present administration (and was targeted by congress before he became president) for "antisemitism".

Here, antisemitism (which is of course real) is in quotes as the antisemitic quality of Columbia University is absolutely a disputable thing (I do have some human, inside knowledge into this. Also, my own biases, education, personal exposures, knowledge of student demographics at Columbia etc. shape my human perception of this issue).

What would have to be a remarkable stretch is to connect this PIs research to antisemitism as such, either personal or institutional. So why is he being a subject of collective punishment? I think this is the crux of Thomas' post.

Does AI think like this? I don't think so. Inputs are discretized still. Reasonableness of the LLM output is sort of the goal, and can be given a statistical sort of definition, so yes, I believe that AI may be more "reasonable" than most persons...but is it approaching being correct about difficult things, like this PIs funding?

I don't think so.

No one will know if it is correct to remove the PIs funding or not. You are entitled to an opinion, but I almost certainly get a better, more rational, more educated response to the argument from Grok. I propose a randomized trial of Grok vs human responses and create a predefined end point for accuracy to see if I am right.

 

[A_DeMichele]

Training program? Something that has to do with residents, I guess

 

[Mandelin Rain]

Made the mistake of having the word "integrated" in the grant title.

Control-F [insert supposed "woke" buzzword] is how all decisions are being made currently. See: Enola Gay.

 

[Gfunk6]

Does AI think like this? I don't think so. Inputs are discretized still. Reasonableness of the LLM output is sort of the goal, and can be given a statistical sort of definition, so yes, I believe that AI may be more "reasonable" than most persons...but is it approaching being correct about difficult things, like this PIs funding?

I don't think so.

ChatGPT:

 

[drowsy12]

No one will know if it is correct to remove the PIs funding or not. You are entitled to an opinion, but I almost certainly get a better, more rational, more educated response to the argument from Grok. I propose a randomized trial of Grok vs human responses and create a predefined end point for accuracy to see if I am right.

Bro.

We are so absolutely ****ed as a society

 

[communitydoc13]

I propose a randomized trial of Grok vs human responses and create a predefined end point for accuracy to see if I am right.

What the eff would you do with this information?

Let's not diminish our human experience.

I also wouldn't trust Grok because of my own human biases.

Inside Grok's war on 'woke'

Elon Musk has said Grok would favor truth over "political correctness." Internal documents reveal how the company is working toward Musk's goal.

www.businessinsider.com

Clearly not the chatbot for me.

 

[thesauce]

The day of massive government cuts was inevitable. We’ve been told that since we were kids and never believed it or never wanted to believe it.

Better it happens now than 10 years from now. Better if it happened 10 years ago.

You can ignore reality but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

 

[drowsy12]

The day of massive government cuts was inevitable. We’ve been told that since we were kids and never believed it or never wanted to believe it.

Better it happens now than 10 years from now. Better if it happened 10 years ago.

You can ignore reality but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

yeah that's not what my comment was about.

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

The day of massive government cuts was inevitable. We’ve been told that since we were kids and never believed it or never wanted to believe it.

Better it happens now than 10 years from now. Better if it happened 10 years ago.

You can ignore reality but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

Yes, government cuts are inevitable if the money isn't there to cover expenditures.

 

[xrt123]

What the eff would you do with this information?

Let's not diminish our human experience.

I also wouldn't trust Grok because of my own human biases.

Inside Grok's war on 'woke'

Elon Musk has said Grok would favor truth over "political correctness." Internal documents reveal how the company is working toward Musk's goal.

www.businessinsider.com

Clearly not the chatbot for me.

It would be incredibly helpful to get accurate information quickly for all people. The question is not whether there is bias in Grok/ChatGPt but what is more accurate and reasonable than 99% of humans. This would be incredibly helpful for everyone everywhere (plus I wont have to be exposed what emotional radoncs are sending out to the ether of the Twitterverse).

We use technology to improve lives of humans without diminishing the human experience. Your bias is to think your opinion is more accurate than it is (as is mine). This specialty is supposed to be the pinnacle of randomized evidence. We should all be championing accurate information. These products are already tested to be better than humans but with inaccuracy.

If self driving cars reduce the risk of road fatalities would you be against that technology even though it diminishes the human experience? Wait they already do.

 

[communitydoc13]

Your bias is to think your opinion is more accurate than it is (as is mine). This specialty is supposed to be the pinnacle of randomized evidence.

AI is very useful already. I use it all the time BTW.

But, I think we are missing each other.

Accuracy is not a concept I would even apply to most opinions. For example, is AI going to establish which of the following two opinions is more accurate?

"NIH funding cuts in 2025 are largely due to a retributive political program by a narcissist, without consideration of return on investment" or

"NIH funding cuts in 2025 are in response to a bloated and unresponsive academic research apparatus".

These are human opinions. Not facts. They are good to have. They are good to talk about. No amount of collection of "evidence" will necessarily invalidate one opinion while substantiating the other. AI can not solve the assignment of relative value to these opinions.

AI can tell you what the human cost of measles was in terms of death and hospitalizations prior to widespread vaccination.

Don't date a bot.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

We use technology to improve lives of humans without diminishing the human experience. Your bias is to think your opinion is more accurate than it is (as is mine). This specialty is supposed to be the pinnacle of randomized evidence. We should all be championing accurate information.

Does not compute.

 

[evilbooyaa]

No one will know if it is correct to remove the PIs funding or not. You are entitled to an opinion, but I almost certainly get a better, more rational, more educated response to the argument from Grok. I propose a randomized trial of Grok vs human responses and create a predefined end point for accuracy to see if I am right.

What are you on about?

Whether it is 'right' is not a fact. People have opinions about things. By definition, an opinion is not a fact. Having an AI tell you an opinion and you accept it as fact is.... like completely non-sensical.

Does not compute.

 

[xrt123]

What are you on about?

Whether it is 'right' is not a fact. People have opinions about things. By definition, an opinion is not a fact. Having an AI tell you an opinion and you accept it as fact is.... like completely non-sensical.

Does not compute.

We have a six page thread on commentary regarding our colleagues ridiculous or inflammatory Twitter comments. I do not think these twitter responses really provide any meaningful discourse or solutions to problems. I think there are better avenues to access and distribute information/opinions.

 

[drowsy12]

We have a six page thread on commentary regarding our colleagues ridiculous or inflammatory Twitter comments. I do not think these twitter responses really provide any meaningful discourse or solutions to problems. I think there are better avenues to access and distribute information/opinions.

Are you a bot?

 

[Lamount]

No one will know if it is correct to remove the PIs funding or not. You are entitled to an opinion, but I almost certainly get a better, more rational, more educated response to the argument from Grok. I propose a randomized trial of Grok vs human responses and create a predefined end point for accuracy to see if I am right.

That is a novel idea. I especially like how you wanted to test the hypothesis before exposing subjects to the repercussions of bad judgment (almost like having a clinical trial BEFORE granting FDA approval). Too bad for this unfortunate PI that Musk doesn’t have the same appreciation for the scientific method… which is, perhaps, why Musk is ill-suited for this work.

 

[SneakyBooger]

This specialty is supposed to be the pinnacle of randomized evidence. We should all be championing accurate information

Perhaps 20 yrs ago that statement was true...

 

[evilbooyaa]

We have a six page thread on commentary regarding our colleagues ridiculous or inflammatory Twitter comments. I do not think these twitter responses really provide any meaningful discourse or solutions to problems. I think there are better avenues to access and distribute information/opinions.

OK. You are entitled to your opinion. But to state that your opinion is a fact.... does not compute.
Does that make sense?

 

[ramsesthenice]

It’s also worth pointing out that “fair” is a subjective and apolitical word. Is it really debatable that it’s “fair” someone can follow standard procedures, receive a contractual agreement, and have that agreement reneged? We can debate what is appropriate or necessary, but come on. If your hospitals admin eliminated your position despite you being one of the highest revenue generators because they thought the prior CEO overspent the budget, would you care about what anyone thought was fair or not? It’s a distraction at best.

 

[Neuronix]

I do appreciate the sentiment, though I'm curious if Evan knows that one of his friends told me directly that he didn't care if I lost one of my grants.