First off, congratulations on reaching a 100th post milestone, Dr. Topol. I appreciate the depth and care with which you’ve reported on the status of AI studies. You demystify, even for lay people like me, AI’s potential, as well as potential pitfalls. I was struck by the ability of AI to reduce radiologist reading time and anticipate there are many time-saving possibilities with low downside--for example, in handling admin paperwork so doctors can focus more on their patients. I saw the ChatGPT story when you tweeted it out, and it gave me renewed appreciation for the potential to use AI to get out of the “silo vision” tendencies in delivering care. I suspect many of us know of instances where “silo” practice of medicine resulted in numerous visits, diagnoses, and extended time periods before an accurate diagnosis was achieved. Well, there is lots more about which to be hopeful here--particularly if pursued responsibly, recognizing limitations, and proceeding carefully, as you model so well in what you write here. Thank you so much for all your good work on this and for all else you do.
Dr. Topol, I have become a religious reader of your newsletter. I am a research oncologist and I learn so much each week. Not sure how you keep up with this much literature, but thank you for putting it together for us.
I may get hammered on this but wouldn't it be prudent to proceed with utmost caution here. On the chance, however slight, that AI alignment fails and AI don't have our best interest in mind- on that flight chance, is it wise to train them on how we are put together from the molecular level up? I feel a sense of unease about the carnival air of enthusiasm gathering steam...
I've tried to offer balance, not "carnival air." There are major deficiencies in how medicine is practiced today, such as >12 million serious diagnostic errors per year in the US, that need to be addressed.
Never did I think you would take that "carnival" comment as aimed, even obliquely, at you!
I subscribe to your newsletter precisely because of your sobriety! But I do think caution is in order in times of rapid change and that there are dangers in misuses and human bad actors as well as unanticipated and unintended long term consequences in any technical revolution such as what is going on now on both AI and biotech.
I should note that I don't take a Luddite position; I urge we proceed with the research, but with one eye to the windward. We are entering a period that is so rapidly changing that we are in a predictive peasoup fog.
First off, congratulations on reaching a 100th post milestone, Dr. Topol. I appreciate the depth and care with which you’ve reported on the status of AI studies. You demystify, even for lay people like me, AI’s potential, as well as potential pitfalls. I was struck by the ability of AI to reduce radiologist reading time and anticipate there are many time-saving possibilities with low downside--for example, in handling admin paperwork so doctors can focus more on their patients. I saw the ChatGPT story when you tweeted it out, and it gave me renewed appreciation for the potential to use AI to get out of the “silo vision” tendencies in delivering care. I suspect many of us know of instances where “silo” practice of medicine resulted in numerous visits, diagnoses, and extended time periods before an accurate diagnosis was achieved. Well, there is lots more about which to be hopeful here--particularly if pursued responsibly, recognizing limitations, and proceeding carefully, as you model so well in what you write here. Thank you so much for all your good work on this and for all else you do.
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS TECHNOLOGY?https://pme.uchicago.edu/news/inverse-vaccine-shows-potential-treat-multiple-sclerosis-and-other-autoimmune-diseases
I'm keen on tolerogenic vaccines and will be posting a Ground Truths on it soon
Dr. Topol, I have become a religious reader of your newsletter. I am a research oncologist and I learn so much each week. Not sure how you keep up with this much literature, but thank you for putting it together for us.
Very kind of you, Vinny. Thank you!
I may get hammered on this but wouldn't it be prudent to proceed with utmost caution here. On the chance, however slight, that AI alignment fails and AI don't have our best interest in mind- on that flight chance, is it wise to train them on how we are put together from the molecular level up? I feel a sense of unease about the carnival air of enthusiasm gathering steam...
I've tried to offer balance, not "carnival air." There are major deficiencies in how medicine is practiced today, such as >12 million serious diagnostic errors per year in the US, that need to be addressed.
Never did I think you would take that "carnival" comment as aimed, even obliquely, at you!
I subscribe to your newsletter precisely because of your sobriety! But I do think caution is in order in times of rapid change and that there are dangers in misuses and human bad actors as well as unanticipated and unintended long term consequences in any technical revolution such as what is going on now on both AI and biotech.
I should note that I don't take a Luddite position; I urge we proceed with the research, but with one eye to the windward. We are entering a period that is so rapidly changing that we are in a predictive peasoup fog.