Ramblings of an old Doc

 

That pun was intended. [rant start here].

Computers are slowly but surely edging into “human territory”. I’m actually glad we’re starting to feel what the mountain lions and bears have felt for years… getting “squeezed out”, in the name of “progress”. I don’t have to guess who’s coming to club this baby seal: United Health Care, BCBC, CMS, Humana (there’s a laugh), et al are (and have been for years).

For those unfamiliar (anyone not know what “Jeopardy is?), Jeopardy! is a North American quiz show featuring trivia in multiple topics. It’s designed to show you there actually were kids who paid attention in school. It also sells corporate ads to everyone’s joy and profit.

Recently, IBM's Watson super computer brain was able to defeat two of Jeopardy's most acclaimed game show champions. One of the human champions had won ‘Jeopardy!’ a mind-blowing 74 times in a row, with over 3 million dollars in prize money… It’s good to know though, Watson got beaten by a human in the following round.

It really wasn’t a “fair” competition. That’s because Watson had access to the net and could, by virtue of it’s “size” parse the facts, and get an answer and phrase it as a question faster (at least in the first round. That is an impressive result, but let’s remember: Watson didn’t have to keep a living body living while it did it’s wonders, it was supplied all it’s needs, and it’s “brain” and “memory” work nothing like the way our biologic ones do. In fact, about the only similarity is that enthalpy is an enemy to us both. It also took humans to create Watson, not vice versa. Watson can be ‘expanded’, people can’t. Fast food doesn’t count: It’s not brain food, and that kind of ‘expansion’ does not occur between the ears but rather below them.

Watson To Help Determine Condition, Treatment Options

While the technology that powers Watson presents a world of new possibilities, those in the medical profession (for whom IBM is hoping will be the first to utilize the system) should rejoice at its proposed price tag. The first one is “free”.  So are your first few bags of “H”.

The way I see it, this is a sort of “intellectual girdle”.

Huh? Yes: There are a few ways to fix a saggy gut… the most healthful is exercise; the least: A girdle (it only makes the abdominal wall weaker). Turns out there’s no such thing as free lunch. Who could have guessed?

I do advocate for it in cases where the physician and consultants are stumped and the patient needs help: But what you see in “House” is kind of exaggerated. What’s rare is rare for a reason: It’s rare.

“IBM hopes that Watson-like systems will help doctors and other health care professionals sift through an endless sea of patient information to determine how to best treat conditions that are specific to each individual.”  I’d suggest adding only this: When asked. Now, having written that, I’m on the corporate s-list. Maybe DHS’s too. Who determines which are the important little (or large) fishies in that “sea of data”? A machine. Unfortunately, a machine won’t and can’t think “ouside the box” (good pun). Yet. This will cause a certain loss rate among the pesky biological units. Oh well…

Did I really just check for black helicopters? Reynolds Wrap here I come.

You see, it’s only that I know that once the camel can get its nose under the tent, it’s a very short time before you’re outside, and camel is in the tent. I told them that 30 years ago. They laughed. They aren’t laughing now. (“They” = “Other M.D.’s). It’s happened to Karen, and I kinda miss interacting with human transcription.

Insurance Companies will drive it: “Shorter stays, lower price tags and better/safer outcomes.” Sound familiar? It’s “Poppa John’s Pizza” ad. Why not? Hospital patients are “Guests”. Doctors are “Gatekeepers” and “Providers”. Newspeak. Actually? Doublethink. “War is Peace”, “Ignorance is Strength”.

In other words, “a physician treating a patient could use the analytic technology of Watson, together with voice and clinical language comprehension software, to reference patient history, related cases and the latest medical journals to determine the best option for diagnosis and treatment.”

Why a physician? Train a monkey. [I hope the munkeh is ok… haven’t stopped hoping he and his are well…]

“The decoding of patient information from physician to physician is a needless obstacle in the medical profession. Some doctors use abbreviations and short-text explanations that exacerbate the translation process from anywhere between 10 minutes to an hour.” (Source: computerworld.com). Another problem: We breathe.

“With Watson, IBM is hoping that this “wasted” time is reduced to mere seconds.”

In addition to its time-saving and “innovative” features, ‘Watson’-like systems are supposedly relatively cheap by medical standards. Face it: In the long run, humans are more expensive. Get rid of us all.

“The actual Watson super computer comprised 90 IBM Power 750 Express servers powered by 8-core processors. Multiply that by four in each server and Watson was running 32 processors per machine, and a grand total of 2,880 processing cores (roughly equivalent to 2,880 single-core CPUs, or 2,880 PCs running a single-core processor). Considering the fact that a Power 750 server currently costs $34,500, the 90 that make up Watson would sell for about $3 million -- far too much for the average individual, but not that expensive given the current cost of most medical equipment.” (Source: networkworld.com)

IBM is hoping that Watson-like super computers will be ready for hospital use in about two year's time.

With increasing patient dissatisfaction with waiting room time, labs and imaging that don’t get back before their visit and dealing with office and professional staff who are increasingly pressured and harassed by “the system” and the trolls in government and corporate sectors, I have a plan: Let’s just say it involves a conveyor belt, preapproved ‘raw material’ (viz. ‘clients’, aka ‘patients’), fast and slow lanes, huge machines and needles/tubes and sampling/imaging/sensing devices, ‘supervised’ treatment and at the end of it, shrink wrap optional packaging… until the next “go around”. All for your own good.

Sort of gives a sardonic twist to “Jeopardy!”, doesn’t it?

[Rant over]


Comments
on Mar 14, 2011

While I do love Jeopardy, the simple fact is the game is designed for computers - instant recall of all facts and data.  What machines cannot do (yet) is the higher form of cognitive behavior.  They cannot make intuitive leaps.  Perhaps in time they will.  When that comes, Skynet is not far behind.  For now, they are just a fast calculator.

on Mar 14, 2011

I agree.  I enjoy jeopardy, but I do not feel that its 'winners' are smart - merely have good memories.  A photo 'remembers' every detail - but doesn't know the meaning of wjhats in the photot.  And jeopardy requires an excellent memory for trivia, and a small measure of language, and reasoning skills.  Still i enjoy wtching the show, from time to time.

 

This brings me to AI intelligence.

Does a machine that somehow learns to make inititutive leaps, to become 'sencitient' always have to 'skynet' us?  Even safegards, like Asimiv's famous robotic '3-laws' is not fool proof, as show in the most recent movie adaption of "I, Robot."  If there is really no scenario where pushing the envelop on AI results in an artifical AI that is not competiting with Homo sapiens sapiens for control, dominance, etc. why do we persue this self-destructive goal.  "Because i can," doesnt cut it.  Not to sound like a ludite, (the folks who tried to stop the industrail machines because these machines were taking their jobs and removing their reason for being) but 'whats up with that?"

 

on Mar 14, 2011

Does a machine that somehow learns to make inititutive leaps, to become 'sencitient' always have to 'skynet' us? Even safegards, like Asimiv's famous robotic '3-laws' is not fool proof, as show in the most recent movie adaption of "I, Robot."

Asimov is my favorite (and I hate the movie because of the way it took liberties with the book), but I am not confident we will learn from him and the 3 laws.  In Asmiov's world, one company made the breakthrough and it was for domestic robots, so they put them in as a marketing gimmick.  Today, thousands of companies are making the advancement, and not all are looking at marketing to the general populace.  Skynet came about because the government wanted it all - and damn the safeguards.  If you remember the 3rd in the series of Terminators, they had drones (like we do even today) and they were used by skynet.  Drones are just what the term implies - stupid obeying objects.  The main computers (the Internet and I2) are where the intelligence is coming from and even with governments doing due diligence, you still have the crackers that love to screw things up just for jollies.  It only takes one Pandora.

on Mar 14, 2011

ElanaAhova
I agree.  I enjoy jeopardy, but I do not feel that its 'winners' are smart - merely have good memories.
 

 

Ummmmm...

on Mar 14, 2011

The bigger achievement with Watson was that they were able to design computer software that can understand context as well as the words involved.  Watson isn't perfect with this yet (note that Montreal is apparently a US city according to Watson), but is leaps and bounds ahead of other speech recognition software.

Imagine how much Google searches are going to benefit from having a 'Watson' on the other end.  Instead of 'guessing' which catch words will bring up the information you seek, along with a bunch of other info you wasn't looking for, you will be able to simply ask:

"What can I put together for dinner tonight utilizing some or all of the (listed) ingredients I currently have on hand?"

or some other question, as you would normally ask a fellow human...

on Mar 14, 2011

tjashen, the way I understand it, while the searcher will profit, Google won't....simply because the search will become more efficient, the salability of the 'fuzziness' in the search will disappear. Seems to me that the ad exposure will shrink.

I could certainly be wrong about that, though. 

on Mar 14, 2011

tjashen

Imagine how much Google searches are going to benefit from having a 'Watson' on the other end.  Instead of 'guessing' which catch words will bring up the information you seek, along with a bunch of other info you wasn't looking for, you will be able to simply ask:

"What can I put together for dinner tonight utilizing some or all of the (listed) ingredients I currently have on hand?"

You can do that at Cooks.com right now.

on Mar 14, 2011

k10w3

Quoting tjashen, reply 5
Imagine how much Google searches are going to benefit from having a 'Watson' on the other end.  Instead of 'guessing' which catch words will bring up the information you seek, along with a bunch of other info you wasn't looking for, you will be able to simply ask:

"What can I put together for dinner tonight utilizing some or all of the (listed) ingredients I currently have on hand?"

You can do that at Cooks.com right now.

Absolutely correct.

on Mar 26, 2011

Cooks com.  Cool another e resource!  Thanks!