Developer fantasy? Here's the consumer fact: people do not like the race-to-the-bottom extractive practices installed on their computers non-consentually. People do not like the union-style collective barganining of duopolies following each other's anticonsumer practices after the bolder one tests it. Everybody complains about this stuff nonstop, and adapts by reducing their attention span on a fundamental level. The demand for a respectful computing environment is enormous.
AI and tech won't help, but if the threshold to try a drug were adjusted to exactly the right threshold, where enrolling in a study would be expected-value neutral (this is by marginal reasoning), taking a placebo would not be worse than not.
I'd think AI and tech could solve the problem pretty easily, assuming the study authors could get access to the health records of everyone that was not in the study (and could therefore generate control cohorts by looking at large samples of comparable patients outside the experimental group).
This is done for targeted advertising all the time. Frustratingly, the surveillance capitalism industry is precisely the reason the dataset you'd need probably shouldn't exist.
Maybe we'll get some decent lawmakers sometime soon, and problems like that will be fixed via legislation. They'd need to ban the root-cause of the problem. I'm guessing it's more likely the current congress will let private companies steal + sell everyone's info instead.
Since we're talking about Canada, ostensibly the government, as the provider of healthcare, wants it to be inexpensive enough that the citizens have a first-world level of care... as opposed to euthanizing sick people because it's easier than providing hospice or expensive treatment.
After all, using the monopoly power of government and taxation is meant to be more efficient and provide more services at lower costs.
A cynical person might presume that MAID is being used as a cost savings measure more than an empathetic alternative for those who do not wish to wait to die of natural causes.
Are the headlines the tip of the iceberg, or the exceptions that gain notoriety? When the government and health care system are so deeply intertwined, who has access to the data but not an incentive to obscure the facts? With any luck, time will tell.
Oh, mostly just the hospitals, the insurers, the medical device manufacturers, the pharmacy benefits managers, the pharmaceutical companies, the group purchasing organizations, and the clearinghouses. Everyone who can take a bigger cut if there’s more money sloshing around the industry.
>What puzzles me is how for many years it was predicted that this was going to happen and that in spite of the warnings it still did. I just don't get it.
Let's say that there are twelve doughnuts in the box. You see someone eat one, and there are 11, 10, 9... and when there are six, you make a prediction: we're going to run out of doughnuts.
A few minutes later, after a late burst of doughnut-grabbing (putting the exhaustion of the box ahead of schedule), it happens. What's the best way to understand this experience?
A) People were removing doughnuts from the box without knowing what would happen. You were the only one who understood how to count in reverse (a skill not ordinarily taught in public schools), and revealed a truth they might not have even understood - until it occurred before their eyes.
B) You revealed a consistent desire to eat doughnuts and a social norm that permitted it, which held true minute after minute, both before and after you published. That's excellent science. They knew they were eating doughnuts, and they wanted them. Their knowledge of the running-out effect, possibly discovered earlier in internal studies, drove them to accelerate the process at the end, rushing to grab the last one before the competition did.
I took it as more of correctly making the prediction and not being taken seriously either when it was made nor when it was fulfilled.
We've seen responses ranging from "You're overreacting. That won't happen," to "It's not going to get worse." Somehow it does and yet they continue the same lines.
There's obviously something else going on, perspective-wise or psychologically. I've always wanted to follow with them and understand what exactly the dynamic is.
Imagine you know a guy named Patel. He pirated every movie ever made and is a prolific writer. So prolific, in fact, that he has a blog, called "Patel's Log." On this blog is a review of every movie ever made.
At first, you think that's neat. It's not exactly a book of all knowledge, but it's a significant human achievement, perhaps even historic.
Things take a turn for the worse when you're reading a review in the Times. You recognize Patel's distinctive style, and call him up to ask if the Times stole his post. He says that a Times columnist asked for his opinion, and he sent them a link. It turns out the columnist copied his blog post verbatim: but he says he can't complain without being inconsistent, since he pirated every movie ever made.
You find this humorous, until you recognize his style in the Atlantic - then the Post. Eventually you're disappointed when the Ebert staff publish an opinion piece in favor of Patel's Log matching (PatelLM), and you're forced to wonder if that' what Ebert would have thought.
Your boss sends you copy-pasted PatelLM content in a morning Slack message about a movie she watched over the weekend. Your friends quote Patel's Log verbatim on Discord. Hollywood starts using PatelLM to indirectly plagiarize other movies. Soon, Patel's posts begin to echo each other as the supply of novel perspectives is overwhelmed by PatelLM. Film criticism become a dessicated corpse, filled with plastic and presented in a glass case with a pin through its heart. Thought is dead. There is only Patel.
> It turns out the columnist copied his blog post verbatim: but he says he can't complain without being inconsistent, since he pirated every movie ever made.
Copyright laws should be applied to LLMs and their users just like any others. If they verbatim reproduce a post (or near enough), then it should be a copyright violation.
> You find this humorous, until you recognize his style in the Atlantic - then the Post.
There's nothing inherently wrong with humans or LLMs learning to mimic someones style. This is actually a basis for styles and genres, etc. Whole trends in arts are just people copying others style's. Sometimes with little improvements.
> Hollywood starts using PatelLM to indirectly plagiarize other movies. Soon, Patel's posts begin to echo each other as the supply of novel perspectives is overwhelmed by PatelLM. Film criticism become a dessicated corpse, filled with plastic and presented in a glass case with a pin through its heart. Thought is dead. There is only Patel.
How exactly is this different than what Hollywood did pre-LLMs for the last decade or two? LLMs didn't cause the homogenization of culture. Corporate Hollywood and the internet did that.
This is commonly misconstrued as christianity, but in christian tradition it would bring about the coming of the antichrist, massive persecutions globally, and armageddon.
Pre-tribulation rapture is a 19th century invention by John Nelson Darby that most Christians worldwide have never held. The entire Orthodox and Catholic traditions reject it. Treating it as 'what Christians believe' is like treating Mormonism as mainstream Islam. It tells you more about the speaker's ignorance of the subject than about the subject itself.
Treating Catholics as "what Christians believe" is just as wrong. Pretribulational premillennialism is a popular position in mainstream Christianity in the US, e.g.
It's all bullshit in the end, but I personally know many people that hold that view that consider themselves Christian. In fact, they think Catholics aren't Christian and are going to hell, because they worship idols.
More specifically, when talking about US politicians like Mike Huckabee that spout off weird religious stuff like this, you can assume protestantism at least, if not fundamentalism and associated woo.
I am not treating Catholics as "what Christians believe". Quite the opposite, actually. I'm saying the original statement was so wrong that two incredibly different denominations are aligned in their rejection of that stance.
Your disdain for Christians is noted, but my point is that your original comment is an oft-repeated, incorrect interpretation of what most Christians have believed since the very beginning of Christianity.
reply