Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
There's a popular podcaster who likes to say that all data is false. What about the data about the data?
A 'film' embedded in a DEF CON talk. 5% of all scientific papers are bogus or indeterminate.
|
The topic that stood out to me today from SA was how non-credible the scientific community is, primarily due to the "follow the money" principle.
My wife gambles with makeup products, as some of them cause an allergic reaction. I asked her why she hasn't identified the ingredient that causes the reaction by looking up the data on which makeup ingredients cause the most adverse reactions, and she said the data doesn't exist (or isn't made available). I find it impossible that with half of everyone using these products, that the data hasn't been gathered, or is not made available. We're in the year 2000, and people still gamble on what products will make their face swell up.
I'm hoping AI demolishes the health industry gatekeepers by making their maleficence apparent to so many people that the gig will be up. As it is right now, folks are happy with medicine as it exists, because their doctor is friendly, and listens to their cat stories during the visit. They're not angry because the doctor costs a fortune due to gatekeepers keeping medicine absurdly expensive. They aren't furious that the diagnosis will depend solely on the knowledge and experience of that single person, rather than having symptoms cross-referenced in a database of millions of symptoms and diagnosis. It's fine that the primary motivation of medicine is to not get sued rather than finding the most effective solutions at the least invasive, lowest cost. Filling out the same exact hundred question paper form every single time they have a visit is no problem when habit convinces us that's reasonable. It's cool that the majority of time spent is documentation rather than considering the symptoms in context, and reasoning through possible remedies.
We are currently living in the age of bloodletting, and we say
