this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
1463 points (98.3% liked)

Science Memes

11068 readers
2633 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 118 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why do I still have to work my boring job while AI gets to create art and look at boobs?

[–] SomeGuy69 53 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Because life is suffering and machines dream of electric sheeps.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago

I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 83 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

Now make mammograms not $500 and not have a 6 month waiting time and make them available for women under 40. Then this'll be a useful breakthrough

[–] ConstantPain 76 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's already this way in most of the world.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Oh for sure. I only meant in the US where MIT is located. But it's already a useful breakthrough for everyone in civilized countries

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 70 points 3 months ago (11 children)

Unfortunately AI models like this one often never make it to the clinic. The model could be impressive enough to identify 100% of cases that will develop breast cancer. However if it has a false positive rate of say 5% it’s use may actually create more harm than it intends to prevent.

[–] [email protected] 59 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Another big thing to note, we recently had a different but VERY similar headline about finding typhoid early and was able to point it out more accurately than doctors could.

But when they examined the AI to see what it was doing, it turns out that it was weighing the specs of the machine being used to do the scan... An older machine means the area was likely poorer and therefore more likely to have typhoid. The AI wasn't pointing out if someone had Typhoid it was just telling you if they were in a rich area or not.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago (3 children)

That's actually really smart. But that info wasn't given to doctors examining the scan, so it's not a fair comparison. It's a valid diagnostic technique to focus on the particular problems in the local area.

"When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras" (outside of Africa)

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Vigge93 47 points 3 months ago

That's why these systems should never be used as the sole decision makers, but instead work as a tool to help the professionals make better decisions.

Keep the human in the loop!

[–] CptOblivius 16 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Breast imaging already relys on a high false positive rate. False positives are way better than false negatives in this case.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] yesman 59 points 3 months ago (6 children)

The most beneficial application of AI like this is to reverse-engineer the neural network to figure out how the AI works. In this way we may discover a new technique or procedure, or we might find out the AI's methods are bullshit. Under no circumstance should we accept a "black box" explanation.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago (8 children)

good luck reverse-engineering millions if not billions of seemingly random floating point numbers. It's like visualizing a graph in your mind by reading an array of numbers, except in this case the graph has as many dimensions as the neural network has inputs, which is the number of pixels the input image has.

Under no circumstance should we accept a "black box" explanation.

Go learn at least basic principles of neural networks, because this your sentence alone makes me want to slap you.

[–] thecodeboss 13 points 3 months ago

Don't worry, researchers will just get an AI to interpret all those floating point numbers and come up with a human-readable explanation! What could go wrong? /s

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] CheeseNoodle 20 points 3 months ago (4 children)

iirc it recently turned out that the whole black box thing was actually a bullshit excuse to evade liability, at least for certain kinds of model.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

IMO, the "black box" thing is basically ML developers hand waiving and saying "it's magic" because they know it will take way too long to explain all the underlying concepts in order to even start to explain how it works.

I have a very crude understanding of the technology. I'm not a developer, I work in IT support. I have several friends that I've spoken to about it, some of whom have made fairly rudimentary machine learning algorithms and neural nets. They understand it, and they've explained a few of the concepts to me, and I'd be lying if I said that none of it went over my head. I've done programming and development, I'm senior in my role, and I have a lifetime of technology experience and education... And it goes over my head. What hope does anyone else have? If you're not a developer or someone ML-focused, yeah, it's basically magic.

I won't try to explain. I couldn't possibly recall enough about what has been said to me, to correctly explain anything at this point.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The AI developers understand how AI works, but that does not mean that they understand the thing that the AI is trained to detect.

For instance, the cutting edge in protein folding (at least as of a few years ago) is Google's AlphaFold. I'm sure the AI researchers behind AlphaFold understand AI and how it works. And I am sure that they have an above average understanding of molecular biology. However, they do not understand protein folding better than the physisits and chemists who have spent their lives studying the field. The core of their understanding is "the answer is somewhere in this dataset. All we need to do is figure out how to through ungoddly amounts of compute at it, and we can make predictions". Working out how to productivly throw that much compute power at a problem is not easy either, and that is what ML researchers understand and are experts in.

In the same way, the researchers here understand how to go from a large dataset of breast images to cancer predictions, but that does not mean they have any understanding of cancer. And certainly not a better understanding than the researchers who have spent their lives studying it.

An open problem in ML research is how to take the billions of parameters that define an ML model and extract useful information that can provide insights to help human experts understand the system (both in general, and in understanding the reasoning for a specific classification). Progress has been made here as well, but it is still a long way from being solved.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Wilzax 45 points 3 months ago (6 children)

If it has just as low of a false negative rate as human-read mammograms, I see no issue. Feed it through the AI first before having a human check the positive results only. Save doctors' time when the scan is so clean that even the AI doesn't see anything fishy.

Alternatively, if it has a lower false positive rate, have doctors check the negative results only. If the AI sees something then it's DEFINITELY worth a biopsy. Then have a human doctor check the negative readings just to make sure they don't let anything that's worth looking into go unnoticed.

Either way, as long as it isn't worse than humans in both kinds of failures, it's useful at saving medical resources.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago

an image recognition model like this is usually tuned specifically to have a very low false negative (well below human, often) in exchange for a high false positive rate (overly cautious about cancer)!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Ok, I'll concede. Finally a good use for AI. Fuck cancer.

[–] ilinamorato 27 points 3 months ago (32 children)

It's got a decent chunk of good uses. It's just that none of those are going to make anyone a huge ton of money, so they don't have a hype cycle attached. I can't wait until the grifters get out and the hype cycle falls away, so we can actually get back to using it for what it's good at and not shoving it indiscriminately into everything.

load more comments (32 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Snapz 24 points 3 months ago (6 children)

And if we weren't a big, broken mess of late stage capitalist hellscape, you or someone you know could have actually benefited from this.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] gmtom 22 points 3 months ago

This is similar to wat I did for my masters, except it was lung cancer.

Stuff like this is actually relatively easy to do, but the regulations you need to conform to and the testing you have to do first are extremely stringent. We had something that worked for like 95% of cases within a couple months, but it wasn't until almost 2 years later they got to do their first actual trial.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago

I can do that too, but my rate of success is very low

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago (6 children)

This is a great use of tech. With that said I find that the lines are blurred between "AI" and Machine Learning.

Real Question: Other than the specific tuning of the recognition model, how is this really different from something like Facebook automatically tagging images of you and your friends? Instead of saying "Here's a picture of Billy (maybe) " it's saying, "Here's a picture of some precancerous masses (maybe)".

That tech has been around for a while (at least 15 years). I remember Picasa doing something similar as a desktop program on Windows.

[–] AdrianTheFrog 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I've been looking at the paper, some things about it:

  • the paper and article are from 2021
  • the model needs to be able to use optional data from age, family history, etc, but not be reliant on it
  • it needs to combine information from multiple views
  • it predicts risk for each year in the next 5 years
  • it has to produce consistent results with different sensors and diverse patients
  • its not the first model to do this, and it is more accurate than previous methods
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] The_Cunt_of_Monte_Cristo 18 points 3 months ago

Well in Turkish, meme beans boob/breast.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago

The ai we got is the meme

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (11 children)

Yes, this is "how it was supposed to be used for".

The sentence construction quality these days in in freefall.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (4 children)

pretty sure iterate is the wrong word choice there

[–] Peps 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They probably meant reiterate

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Serious question: is there a way to get access to medical imagery as a non-student? I would love to do some machine learning with it myself, as I see lot’s of potential in image analysis in general. 5 years ago I created a model that was able to spot certain types of ships based only on satellite imagery, which were not easily detectable by eye and ignoring the fact that one human cannot scan 15k images in one hour. Similar use case with medical imagery - seeing the things that are not yet detectable by human eyes.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] TCB13 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

AI should be used for this, yes, however advertisement is more profitable.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's worse than that.

This is a different type of AI that doesn't have as many consumer facing qualities.

The ones that are being pushed now are the first types of AI to have an actually discernable consumer facing attribute or behavior, and so they're being pushed because no one wants to miss the boat.

They're not more profitable or better or actually doing anything anyone wants for the most part, they're just being used where they can fit it in.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›