Google AI will Tell You When to Die

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,510
Google is soon going to be in the business of telling us when we are going to die. Would have liked to have seen the percentages it gave me when I headed into corner 10 at CoTA off-line at about 120mph. In all seriousness, as morbid as it is, WebMD looks to be in trouble.


The hospital’s computers read her vital signs and estimated a 9.3 percent chance she would die during her stay. Then came Google’s turn. An new type of algorithm created by the company read up on the woman -- 175,639 data points -- and rendered its assessment of her death risk: 19.9 percent. She passed away in a matter of days.
 
... So they predicted 19.9% vs 9.9%, and then she passed away in a matter of days.

Okay. That didn't really help anyone...? Your treatment should give 100% whether it's 1% or 99%... Not to mention both of them were so far off to begin with.
 
Last edited:
How is this any more accurate than psychic readings? It's literally overseeing the obvious and jumping to a conclusion based off of the limited information.

It's bothersome how all these programmed scripts are referred to as "AI". There's nothing intelligent about code, it's literally doing what it's programmed to do.
 
This is a can of worms. If the analytics predict the patient is going to die, will the staff bother spending their resources on the patient? Making sure the prediction will fulfill itself.

The beautiful thing about medical professionals is that they tend to be a bunch of Johnny Tryhards. A prediction of imminent failure is like a challenge to those driven enough to succeed in such a gruelling field.
 
How is this any more accurate than psychic readings? It's literally overseeing the obvious and jumping to a conclusion based off of the limited information.

It's bothersome how all these programmed scripts are referred to as "AI". There's nothing intelligent about code, it's literally doing what it's programmed to do.

Perpaps you should study a bit more on machine learning.
 
Perpaps you should study a bit more on machine learning.
Until a machine writes it's own code, and without error, creates function, is fully self aware to do all this.. It's still a programmed script. No matter how advanced - not an AI.
 
This is a can of worms. If the analytics predict the patient is going to die, will the staff bother spending their resources on the patient? Making sure the prediction will fulfill itself.

Sure, but isn't the allocation of scarce resources inherent in the concept of triage? Where do you draw the line?

Or is it the fact that computer is involved that you find troubling?
 
This has only been a thing for 130 years now. just maybe not as "customer friendly" as having your own little prophet of death and despair sitting on the kitchen counter.


mortality-table-life-insurance.png
 
This is a can of worms. If the analytics predict the patient is going to die, will the staff bother spending their resources on the patient? Making sure the prediction will fulfill itself.

Or will the insurance company deny coverage if it gives you a 75% chance to die?
 
The beautiful thing about medical professionals is that they tend to be a bunch of Johnny Tryhards. A prediction of imminent failure is like a challenge to those driven enough to succeed in such a gruelling field.

To an extent. Surgeons will bypass you if you are high risk because it affects their insurance rates, and after a while gets the medical board to look at your license.
 
Until a machine writes it's own code, and without error, creates function, is fully self aware to do all this.. It's still a programmed script. No matter how advanced - not an AI.

The script strength based on how well the training set is formed.
 
This has only been a thing for 130 years now. just maybe not as "customer friendly" as having your own little prophet of death and despair sitting on the kitchen counter.


View attachment 82423
Except now, google will add in the statistical difference because your uncle that has diabetes and your grandmother died of colon cancer and you look worse than the next applicant and don't get that job you're applying for.
 
The beautiful thing about medical professionals is that they tend to be a bunch of Johnny Tryhards. A prediction of imminent failure is like a challenge to those driven enough to succeed in such a gruelling field.
The problem is the insurance industry is who funds the medical professionals, I mean christ they already deny coverage for shit they don't think will be particularly useful and this is without some AI that says you will die or not.
 
I mean I've been telling Google when to fck off for years now, so I suppose it's only fair.

They should tie it in with stuff like GPS & Alexa, so you'd just hear a faint and muffled "Good bye, Mr. Bennett" from your pocket right before the tail kicks out. :cool:
Here is the exact moment I got it back in front of the tail. Just happened to be a photog in that corner on that lap.

COTATurn10.jpg
 
That arrogance and audacity of silicon valley is unprecedented.
 
Except now, google will add in the statistical difference because your uncle that has diabetes and your grandmother died of colon cancer and you look worse than the next applicant and don't get that job you're applying for.

Wow. That's a stretch.

better example would be you denied life insurance based on a higher mortality risk, you know, sort of like how that data is used now?
 
Wow. That's a stretch.

better example would be you denied life insurance based on a higher mortality risk, you know, sort of like how that data is used now?
Because medical is never part of any job you work. Hell, in large companies 'health insurance' is entirely underwritten by the company. It may be administered by a ABC Ins. company, but at the end of the day, the company is paying the bills, directly or through permium costs. If you're potentially a huge expense from their medical budget they will not hire you.

Are you naive or being a troll?
https://www.adn.com/business-econom...-hires-about-their-medical-history-heres-why/

It's potentially illegal but its pretty easy to give a false explanation for not hiring someone.
 
To an extent. Surgeons will bypass you if you are high risk because it affects their insurance rates, and after a while gets the medical board to look at your license.
Depends on how difficult it'd be to fix the problem via surgery.

Just because you have a high chance of dying doesn't mean that a possible fix has a high chance of being the cause of death.

Medically speaking doctors would also argue that if the machine can have a high enough success rate when predicting death, near enough to call it statistically certain, then their intervention would only be likely to help and not harm further which would effectively absolve them of nearly all possible risk outside of instances of clear cut incompetence of course.

In certain instances where the injury or illness is known to be fatal anyways without intervention this sort of argument is already legally used frequently to justify risky procedures and indemnify the doctor from legal action.
 
Are you naive or being a troll?
https://www.adn.com/business-econom...-hires-about-their-medical-history-heres-why/

It's potentially illegal but its pretty easy to give a false explanation for not hiring someone.
Any employer that tries to do this is gonna get sued and when their hiring practices are found out in discovery (cuz' the HR stooge doing what he is told isn't gonna sell himself up the river to protect the execs bottom line) then they'll get reamed out financially.
 
Because medical is never part of any job you work. Hell, in large companies 'health insurance' is entirely underwritten by the company. It may be administered by a ABC Ins. company, but at the end of the day, the company is paying the bills, directly or through permium costs. If you're potentially a huge expense from their medical budget they will not hire you.

Are you naive or being a troll?
https://www.adn.com/business-econom...-hires-about-their-medical-history-heres-why/

It's potentially illegal but its pretty easy to give a false explanation for not hiring someone.


I work in healthcare. have for about 20 years now.

Our insurance plan is fully company financed. If they could do this, they already would, the risk of getting sued for withholding health care (laws, you know, ethics, all that shit) And getting the living hell sued out of you for discriminatory hiring practices is what keeps this from being a thing. that being said, our insurance plan costs are based on a Health management plan, if you smoke, you pay more. that's a big difference to not hiring someone because they have a family history of Colon cancer.

Maybe should know what the fuck you are talking about before calling someone naïve or accusing them of being a troll.
 
Any employer that tries to do this is gonna get sued and when their hiring practices are found out in discovery (cuz' the HR stooge doing what he is told isn't gonna sell himself up the river to protect the execs bottom line) then they'll get reamed out financially.
A lot of jobs, although I won't say are careers, they have a raise and promotion path which are not templated. Is that really how you want to start your job at such a place, suing them into hiring you? And word gets around, good luck at the next place.
 
This is a can of worms. If the analytics predict the patient is going to die, will the staff bother spending their resources on the patient? Making sure the prediction will fulfill itself.

or if the patient hears they have a high chance of death.. and the scare then kills them from the stress...
 
Back
Top