THIS is the AI we need.
this post was submitted on 03 May 2026
167 points (95.1% liked)
Technology
84623 readers
4904 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Agreed, this is exactly what reinforcement learning and neural networks are good at. Calling them AI is beyond dumb, but hey marketing will be marketing. It's pattern recognition, which is cool, but nobody would call that intelligent otherwise. Another big issue with the marketing is they only report on the success rate and not the failure rate. Doctors praise the cases being caught, but dislike the models pointing out stuff that is clearly not a tumor. It wastes time for people already short on time. These models also risk doctors becoming over reliant on them, even though they can have serious blind spots and thus miss stuff a doctor would have caught. Or the other way around, have people receive treatment (often not without risk, discomfort and cost to the patient), where none was needed. The thing that bothers me the most is how it's always framed as a win for AI. Like see AI is good at diagnosing cancer (which then gets extrapolated to curing cancer for some bizarre reason), so that useless chat bot is also good somehow. Because AI.
Robert Murphy's lab at Carnegie Mellon has developing learning sets like this for 20 years.
This is not designed to replace medical opinion, it's designed to cross check as pathologists and radiologist have about 1% misses which is not acceptable.
But that takes actual work. See how the LLM systems are constantly wrong? That is because after you get to about 80% accuracy the rest will murder you.
This would take time and actual investment. Not something big tech can handle.
~~can~~ wants to
FTFY
Yeah, instead I'm pretty sure those data centers and Theil's AI/Anti-Christ talk are because they see the "real money" is in AI porn.
That's particularly useful for pancreatic cancer, if it's accurate, reliable, cost effective, and practical in the real world.
Hey lookie here, the statistical pattern matching algorithm has some uses that could help society maybe possibly. Sure beats replacing artists or building inefficient chat bots that give people the Eliza effect.
seems they need scans from different patients, like alot of them to make it look accurate. i wonder how well it will do with 1 scan only, because a biopsy after 1 scan/ or another scam is unneccesary waste and expensive it detects one and finds nothing, biopsis are not pleasant. definitely on the cost and reliability, since it needs more than 1 scan, it likely would cost alot.
another point in the article, is the "abnormal cells hiding the actual cancer cells" likely could be abnormal fibroblasts, which are found in other cancer cells that feed the cancer itself(by giving up its neutrients"