Let me trace the timeline here because nobody's connecting it.
Step 1: Scrape the entire internet. Every book, every article, every conversation, every piece of art, every forum post. Do it without asking. Do it without paying.
Step 2: Train a model on all of it. Call it "artificial intelligence."
Step 3: Go to BlackRock's Infrastructure Summit and announce: "We see a future where intelligence is a utility, like electricity or water, and people buy it from us on a meter."
Step 3 is where you sell people's own knowledge back to them. On a meter.
They took the collective output of human thought, compressed it into a model, and now they want to charge you by the token to access a version of what you and everyone you know already created.
One Reddit user put it perfectly: "They stole all this data from us, the people, our life's work, creativity, art, by devouring the internet and blowing through all copyright laws. Now they want to sell it back to us in the form of a utility."
Imagine if someone photocopied every book in the public library, burned the library down, and then opened a subscription service for the copies.
That's the metered intelligence business model.
And they're pitching it to infrastructure investors as though they invented water.
@MikeAdxx $22 mil in 2025 for arguable the best perimeter defender in the NBA while also being a solid shooter and automatic from the mid range when he takes weird looking fade always
Yeah that’s not even close to the worst contract in the NBA all you’ve done is show you don’t know ball
@rlprsn@selfattentive@LinkofSunshine I don't disagree it's a real problem that needs to be addressed. I also find it concerning. To me it seems like this is offering a method to teach that should be emphasized. I think a big problem is doctors are taught how to "study" but not sufficiently how to problem solve.
@rlprsn@selfattentive@LinkofSunshine On a careful reading I don't think they actually had it done for them. If I'm reading it correctly they learned HOW to use it to model things correctly. My bad for misrepresenting what it says. https://t.co/AVtEwLT2hh
@ZBRquery@rlprsn@selfattentive@LinkofSunshine Actually I think I misrepresented something unintentionally. "After learning during the training session how to translate conditional probabilities into natural frequencies, the gynecologists’ confusion disappeared; 87% of them now understood that
1 in 10 is the best answer."
@ZBRquery@rlprsn@selfattentive@LinkofSunshine This implies that rather than being given the numbers, they were given the tools (or problem solving technique) to translate the conditional probabilities into natural frequencies which makes the problem intuitive.
@ZBRquery@rlprsn@selfattentive@LinkofSunshine Actually I think I misrepresented something unintentionally. "After learning during the training session how to translate conditional probabilities into natural frequencies, the gynecologists’ confusion disappeared; 87% of them now understood that
1 in 10 is the best answer."
@rlprsn@selfattentive@LinkofSunshine From my outside view I do think there are some real problems with the way doctors are educated, oftentimes it seems there's an emphasis on rote memorization and not as much on problem solving, which will lead to results like this. Perhaps the medical school bottleneck contributes
@rlprsn@selfattentive@LinkofSunshine It's obviously an important part of their job and they should get it right, but I wouldn't say understanding statistics is what they do for a living. Their job is to provide care. Generally doctors that focus on research don't provide care as much, and would likely do better.
@DrDaniS@TomWright165389 The accident of consciousness allows us to choose to take risks for the sake of others. People choose to do it everyday. If no one did we would have no firefighters, coast guard, etc. Maybe you can't understand why someone would choose to risk their life to save others
@Timster1980@rlprsn@selfattentive@LinkofSunshine In other words I think you misinterpreted the point of what I was trying to say: that when represented as natural frequencies doctors found the problem easier to understand.
@Timster1980@rlprsn@selfattentive@LinkofSunshine It's possible I missed something in the study (I basically just word searched it for relevant parts) but my understanding is they originally gave them the percentages and doctors got it wrong, and when they changed it to numbers doctors got it right. Previous column on same page
@rlprsn@selfattentive@LinkofSunshine From the study. Don't think this is a huge indictment of doctors though having TAed premed students it doesn't shock me they don't have a rigorous understanding of the math. That said it's actually a pretty interesting example of how to improve training by using clear language.
@biemelneus@mosley_48@selfattentive@LinkofSunshine You're being really stupid about this and then calling other people stupid. False negatives are also inaccurate. Only giving accuracy and not specificity and sensitivity isn't sufficient to solve the problem. Fwiw the actual study gave both but OP did a bad job explaining