You don’t understand how they work and that’s fine, you’re upset based on your paranoid guesswork thats filled in the lack of understanding and that’s sad.

No one is stealing from society, ‘society’ isn’t being deprived of anything when ai looks at an image. The research is pretty open, humanity is benefitting from it in the same way Tesla, Westi ghouse and Edison benefitted the history of electrical research.

And yes I’d you’re about to tell me Edison did nothing but steal then this is another bit of tech history you’ve not paid attention to beyond memes.

The big companies you hate like meta or nvidia are producing papers that explain methods, you can follow along at home and make your own model - though with those examples you don’t need to because they’ve released models on open licenses. Ironically it seems likely you don’t understand how this all works or what’s happening because zuck is doing significantly more to help society than you are - Ironic, hu?

And before you tell me about zuck doing genocide or other childish arguments, we’re on lemmy which was purposefully designed to remove the power from a top down authority so if an instance pushed for genocide we would have zero power to stop it - the report you’re no doubt going go allude to says that Facebook is culpable because it did not have adequate systems in place to control locally run groups…

I could make good arguments against zuck, I don’t think anyone should be able to be that rich but it’s funny to me when a group freely shares pytorch and other key tools used to help do things like detect cancer cheaply and efficient, help impoverished communities access education and health resources in their local language, help blind people have independence, etc, etc, all the many positive uses for ai - but you shit on it all simply because you’re too lazy and selfish to actually do anything materially constructive to help anyone or anything that doesn’t directly benefit you.

I also agree.

However these medical LLMs have been around for a long time, and don’t use horrific amounts of energy, not do they make billionaires richer. They are the sorts of things that a hobbiest can put together provided they have enough training data. Further to that they can run offline, allowing doctors to perform tests in the field, as I can attest to witnessing first hand with soil transmitted helminths surveys in Mozambique. That means that instead of checking thousands of stool samples manually, those same people can be paid to collect more samples or distribute the drugs to cure the disease in affected populations.

No, here. You could asked for a link or Google.

https://adni.loni.usc.edu/ here ya go

Edit: European DTI Study on Dementia too, he said it’s easier to get data from there

My intended use case is to find possibilities how ML can support people with certain tasks.

weaselly bullshit. how exactly do you intend for people to use technology that identifies ships via satellite? what is your goal? because the only use cases I can see for this are negative

This is no reason to stop science entirely

if the only thing your tech can be used for is bad then you’re bad for innovating that tech

find possibilities how ML can support people with certain tasks

Marxism-Leninism?

Oh, Machine Learning.

Science is not political

in an ideal world maybe, but that is not our world. In reality science is always always political. It is unavoidable.

removed by mod

It never makes mistakes that affect diagnosis?

Also, where the hell did you pull that number from?

Well, you can just do the math yourself, it’s pretty straight-forward.

However, more to the point, it’s taken right from around 38 seconds into the video. Kind of funny to be accused of “not watching the video” by someone who is implying the number was pulled from nowhere, when it’s right in the video.

I certainly don’t think this closes the book on anything, but I’m responding to your claim that it’s not useful. If this is a cheap and easy test, it’s a great screening tool putting people into groups of low risk/high risk for which further, maybe more expensive/specific/sensitive, tests can be done. Especially if it can do this early.

Machine learning is one of the many things that is referred to by “AI”, yes.

My thought is the term “AI” has been overused to uselessness, from the nested if statements that decide how video game enemies move to various kinds of machine learning to large language models.

So I’m personally going to avoid the term.

The correct term is “Computational Statistics”

Say it is a predictive llm

According to the paper cited by the article OP posted, there is no LLM in the model. If I read it correctly, the paper says that it uses PyTorch’s implementation of ResNet18, a deep convolutional neural network that isn’t specifically designed to work on text. So this term would be inaccurate.

or a pattern recognition model.

Much better term IMO, especially since it uses a convolutional network. But since the article is a news publication, not a serious academic paper, the author knows the term “AI” gets clicks and positive impressions (which is what their job actually is) and we wouldn’t be here talking about it.

it’s a good term, it refers to lots of thinks. there are many terms like that.

I skimmed the paper. As you said, they made a ML model that takes images and traditional risk factors (TCv8).

I would love to see comparison against risk factors + human image evaluation.

Nevertheless, this is the AI that will really help humanity.

For the image-only DL model, we implemented a deep convolutional neural network (ResNet18 [13]) with PyTorch (version 0.31; pytorch.org). Given a 1664 × 2048 pixel view of a breast, the DL model was trained to predict whether or not that breast would develop breast cancer within 5 years.

The only “innovation” here is feeding full view mammograms to a ResNet18(2016 model). The traditional risk factors regression is nothing special (barely machine learning). They don’t go in depth about how they combine the two for the hybrid model, so it’s probably safe to assume it is something simple (merely combining the results, so nothing special in the training step). edit: I stand corrected, commenter below pointed out the appendix, and the regression does in fact come into play in the training step

As a different commenter mentioned, the data collection is largely the interesting part here.

I’ll admit I was wrong about my first guess as to the network topology used though, I was thinking they used something like auto encoders (but that is mostly used in cases where examples of bad samples are rare)