faceh
3hr ago
I don't think 14% is a big deal, there's already a great deal of heterogeneity in terms of surgical outcomes for all surgeons overall, but it does exist.
I'd also be suspicious that this could be an artifact of the older surgeons being handed the tougher cases, or handling older patients such that complications are somewhat more likely to arise.
Similar logic to that study about black babies getting 'worse' outcomes when treated by white doctors... which dissolves when accounting for the fact that the white doctors were getting the toughest cases of any given race.
At any rate I'm sure there's more direct ways to assess a surgeon's skills from the outside (although apparently just asking for their IQ results is out?) but finding one that's a reliable, hard-to-fake signal is the challenge.
The main thing I appreciate about LLMs is the general fact that I can ask them to detail the source of all their knowledge and they can generally cite and point to it all so I can double-check myself, whereas I'd guess most doctors would scoff if you tried to "undermine their credibility" in such a way.
faceh
18hr ago
As an aside, older is not better for doctors. It's a common enough belief, including inside the profession, but plenty of objective studies demonstrate that 30-40 year old clinicians are the best overall. At a certain point, cognitive inflexibility from old age, habit, and not keeping up with the latest updates can't be compensated for from experience alone.
I definitely believe that younger doctors are more up-to-date in best practices and aren't full of old knowledge that has proven ineffective or even harmful.
But if you could hold other factors approximately equal, I'd still bet my life on the guy whose' seen 10,000 cases and performed a procedure 8000 times over someone who is merely younger but with 1/3 the experience.
Lindy rule and all that. If he's been successfully practicing for this long its proof positive he's done things right.
and some doctors are just that smart, while having the unfair advantage of richer interaction with a human patient.
Yeah, I suspect that even if LLMs are a full standard deviation IQ higher than your average doctor, the massive disadvantage of only being able to reason from the data stream that the humans have intentionally supplied, and not go in and physically interact with the patient's body will hobble them in many cases. I also wonder if they are willing/able to notice when a patient is probably straight up lying to them.
And yet, they're finding ways to hook the machine up to real world sensor data which should narrow that advantage in practice.
And as you gestured at in your comment... you can very rapidly get second opinions by consulting other models. So now that brings us to the question of whether the combining the opinions of Claude AND Gemini AND ChatGpt would bring us even better results overall.
I mean, yeah, if a legislator passes a big, comprehensive new package that revamps entire statutes then there's no readily applicable case law, then its anybody's game to figure out how to interpret it all, an experienced attorney might bring extra gravitas to their argument... I'm not sure they're more likely to get it right (where 'right' means "best complies with all existing precedent and avoids added complexity or contradictions," not "what is the best outcome for the client.")
(ie basically comes down to judgement).
But this is my point. If you encounter an edge case that hasn't been seen, but have a fully fleshed-out fact pattern and access to the relevant caselaw (identifying which is relevant being the critical skill) why would we expect a specialist attorney to beat an LLM? Its drawing from precisely the same well, and forging new law isn't magic, its using one's best judgment, balancing out various practical concerns, and trying to create a stableish equilibrium... among other things.
What really makes the human's judgment more on point (or, the dreaded word, "reasonable") than a properly prompted LLM's?
I've had the distinct pleasure of drilling down to finicky sections of convoluted statutes and arguing about their application where little precedent exists. I've also had my arguments win on appeal, and enter the corpus of existing caselaw.
ChatGPT was still able to give me insightful 'novel' arguments to make on this topic when I was prepping to argue a MSJ on this particular issue by pointing out other statutory interactions that bolster the central point. It clearly 'reasons' about the wording, the legislative intent, the principles of interpretation in a way that isn't random.
Also, have you heard of the new law review article that argues "Hallucinated Cases are Good Law." It argues that even though the AI is creating cases that don't exist out of whole cloth, they do so by correlating legal concepts and principles from across a larger corpus of knowledge and thus they're hallucinating what a legal opinion "should" be if it accounted for all precedent and applied legal principles to a given fact pattern.
I find this... somewhat compelling. I don't think I've encountered situations where the AI hallucinated caselaw or statutes that contradicted the actual law... but it sure did like to give me citations that were very favorable to my arguments, and phrased in ways that sounded similar to existing law. Like it can imagine what the court would say if it were to agree with my arguments and rule based on existing precedent.
I dunno. I think I'm about at the point where I might accept the LLM's opinion on 'complex' cases more readily than I would a randomly chosen county judge's opinion.
At this point, I would trust GPT 5.2 Thinking over a non-specialist human doctor operating outside their lane.
Taking this at absolute face value, I wonder if this is at least partially because the specialists will have observed/experienced various 'special cases' that aren't captured by the medical literature and thus aren't necessarily available in the training data.
As I understand it, the best argument for going to an extremely experienced specialist is always the "ah yes, I treated a tough case of recurrent Craniofacial fibrous dysplasia in the Summer of '88, resisted almost all treatment methods until we tried injections of cow mucus and calcium. We can see if your condition is similar" factor. They've seen every edge case and know solutions to problems other doctors don't even know exist.
(I googled that medical term up there just to be clear)
LLMs are getting REALLY good at legal work, since EVERYTHING of importance in the legal world is written down, exhaustively, and usually publicly accessible, and it all builds directly on previous work. Thus, drawing connections between concepts and cases and application to fact patterns should be trivial for an LLM with access to a Westlaw subscription and ALL of the best legal writing in history in its training corpus.
It is hard to imagine a legal specialist with 50 years of experience being able to outperform an LLM that knows all the same caselaw and law review articles and has working knowledge of every single brief ever filed to the Supreme Court.
I would guess a doctor with 50 years of experience (and good enough recall to incorporate all that experience) can still make important insights in tough cases, that would elude an AI (for now).
faceh
9d ago
This is the type of question that would have caused 50 pages of rowdy debate on a 2014 bodybuilding forum.
faceh
10d ago
And have everyone competing to be the guy that sets the standard?
I feel like Goodhart's law would become a problem real quick LMAO.
faceh
11d ago
This seems ACTUALLY unfair to guys who are growers not showers.
Seems like they should probably standardize something regarding the uniforms here to make it so jump length isn't so directly correlated with junk length.
faceh
13d ago
Westminster Abbey
And yet when I argue that it's not all that big a deal on the individual level if the Mona Lisa were destroyed, I get dogpiled.
faceh
13d ago
Yeah, I imagine paramedics have a clinical but unvarnished view of human fragility. Most of us are probably, in theory, only a few inches and a bad fall away from parapalegia at any given moment when we're not fast asleep.
Seeing what a short fall to concrete can do to a human, its sometimes amazing to think that we don't keep the whole world (or ourselves) ensconced in bubble wrap at all times.
faceh
14d ago
If we allowed the human advancement for advancement's sake, then our enemies would gain political power.
Ironically, one of the better reasons to get space-based industry going is to try and outrun these Molochian incentives for a while.
My dream is to have a nice little O'Neill Cylinder of my own, tucked inside a nondescript asteroid, powered by fusion, so that I can genuinely just live life in peace, such that there's no major incentive to try and exercise political authority over me and mine.
Unless we think that the drive of the collectivists will not permit them to leave someone alone who could be forced to come into the fold. At which point I'd rather fight them to the death before we get off-planet.
faceh
14d ago
My general response to that is "the market would sort it out" under normal conditions.
We just can't let the existence of human suffering, somewhere, be an excuse to shut down human advancement everywhere.
If we are productive enough to have excess resources lying around after we feed, house, clothe, and entertain ourselves, some of it can probably get thrown at speculative science projects or pure pursuit of knowledge sans profit motive.
Is there demand for it? Probably not that much... but the people that would demand it also happen to be pretty rich.
Some of that also comes down to how you answer the Fermi paradox. If there's a small but nonzero chance of happening across other intelligent life (or the remnants of same) that's a potentially massive payoff, so buying a few lotto tickets 'makes sense' if survival isn't compromised (lol Dark Forest Theory).
Deep Space Telescopes in particular seem to be relatively cheap to deploy and have a small but real chance of discovering something really, really cool... even if not immediately valuable.
If we were moving rapidly towards space industrialization, they'd also be useful for finding ripe targets for Von Neumann Probes.
faceh
15d ago
I can count one of my ratchet clicks away from leftism when I first heard the performance of the poem "Whitey on the Moon."
From 1970, complaining about the moon landing whilst poverty exists.
Just an insane level of scope blindness. "How dare you move the course of human history and the frontiers of exploration forward while I have to pay more for food.
Which ignores that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, but also represents the kind of envious Luddism that threatens to keep us confined to this rock forever.
(And no, this isn't a feature that is limited to the left).
Agreed, but even aiming at the companies manufacturing intermediate parts can work.
(I just have an ETF that holds robotics and automation stocks)
The Chinese dominance is concerning.
Personally I'm bearish on Chinese industry in the medium term, so I'd still prefer holding what few U.S. options exist.
faceh
15d ago
My genuine expectation is the next explosion/bubble (if AGI isn't cracked circa 2028 as seemingly expected) is robotics, specifically automated robotics.
I expect quadcopter-style autonomous drones, human-form-factor robots, and non-humanoid robots are about to see a surge in usage. Elon announcing that they'd literally shut down Tesla production lines to build more Optimus robots seems like one of those screaming sirens indicating what the future brings if he's positioning himself to dominate the production of physical robots NOW.
And this and other indicators have not percolated through to the mainstream awareness yet, so we're absolutely still 'early' to the game. And with the looming population crisis, robots are going to be a NECESSARY tech tree branch to explore.
So what are some companies in that branch of the tech tree that stand to gain from the 'intermediate' phase of the robotics industry?
Do I know specifically which stocks are best to aim for a 5x? Hell no.
Tesla would be a good one... but hard to see it genuinely 5xing in a short period given how inflated its value already seems.
Otherwise, make a few bets on some pharma companies to discover something even cooler than magical weight loss drugs (likely with AI assistance). Problem there is FDA approval being slow.
faceh
16d ago
I mean, I liquidated almost my entire crypto holdings to get the funds for my house/holdover for extra expenses.
And I don't regret it, because the crypto world went FULL retard after I bought the house, and while the house value increased a lot, the mere fact of "I can live here and not be bothered by increasing rents or volatile crypto markets" was a source of peace. Decent interest rate too.
I've had some investments perform better, but none that were as directly beneficial to me in the interim period.
Buying a house you intend to reside in for the long term is an easier play than buying one you might or might not be staying in five years later.
But that's very dependent on the labor market. Can't stay somewhere if there's no decent-paying jobs.
There was a point in time where I held two whole Bitcoin. Now I hold functionally zero. Can't live in a Bitcoin, can't store my stuff in one, can't invite friends over to hang out in one, and BTC hasn't provided me with minor projects to work on outside that significantly help with my mental health.
I dunno. I could spend my days tracking the market's ups and downs... or I could tend my garden, do small repairs around the house, sleep in a bed that I cannot be removed from absent an act of God.
Its not so bad.
I think it is underestimated that for a certain type of person, the mental peace of owing nobody else any money (which gives them a piece of leverage over you) and having a decent amount of savings squirreled away GENUINELY outweighs an extra 2-3% of gains from keeping things in the market.
Best way to describe it is that debt = fragility. If you get behind on payments, the interest rate marches on. The creditor can call in the funds under certain circumstances, whether you have the money or not. You get behind and it can be a struggle to catch up, and it inhibits you in other ways. And bankruptcy is an option but you have to be in dire straits to pull that lever.
And it can also make it harder to take on new debt even when that would be advisable.
I'm not one of those "usury is evillllllll" guys, but I am one of those "I pay every debt on time and as owed" guys so the mental stress of knowing I gotta keep up with payments is annoying.
Me, I like short term, secured loans as my go-to. Seen too many people get screwed over by personally guaranteeing debt for things that weren't productive enough to justify it.
faceh
18d ago
But I'm not sure how workable that is in practice.
I just note that Florida has had VERY few issues with rioters and harassment of civilians in the past 5 years.
There are of course other reasons for that.
I think it almost facially true that if the law disfavors those who act against the harassers, then most will choose to just sit by and take no action, which likely emboldens the protestors further.
It also sidesteps the issue of local officials who might tacitly support the protestors and order Law Enforcement to stand down.
I would never blame someone for not wanting to escalate a situation on their own, though.
faceh
18d ago
Maybe it's my imagination, but I feel like I've seen more and more of this Terrorism Lite in recent years. Things like traffic-blocking; meeting disruption; etc.
I mean... look up historical activist tactics, especially in the '60s and '70's.
Both terrorist-lite and terrorist-heavy tactics get employed, and there are whole books written on the proper training and implementation of each.
In the same way, there could be laws which sanction people, organizations, and governments for providing material support to what I have called Terrorism Lite. (Perhaps someone can suggest a better term.)
Generally agreed, but the other approach is to empower those on the receiving end to immediately respond relatively harshly and given them legal support for doing so.
Florida's notorious anti-riot law did in fact increase penalties for organizing riots/violent protests. But it also added legal protections for individuals who are targeted by rioters and respond with violent action (limited to self defense, mind).
I think its obvious that if interrupting a religious service with a mob of people could get someone beaten or even shot, and the defender would be legally immune from consequences... they'd be much, much less inclined to take on the risks inherent in that action.
This is a separate question from whether the churchgoers have the ability and will to actually get violent.
Me I'm just trying to promote an environment where connections can happen.
I don't really try to suggest who should pair off with whom, although I'll sometimes nudge a guy to shoot a shot if I think he's in the clear.
Its important for more than just romantic connections anyway. Gotta have people rubbing elbows and talking to figure out if there's beneficial arrangements to be made.
Well, that and she wasn't present in the room to see Taylor's reaction to the body bag, might have had a couple seconds warning if she saw Taylor.
And hey, props to both Alexandria and Tagg for pulling off a convincing enough act. I was half expecting Taylor to cling to the possibility that it was someone else who was dead, rather than reasoning herself into it being one of her friends.
Still, a full flock of insects bee-lining (heh) for your face is going to give you enough warning to clamp your jaw shut and try to cover your nose.
And if she is indeed vulnerable in this way, the way I would go about trying to kill her (which I literally thought of just now) would be getting a shot of containment foam down her throat. Yes I know its breathable, I'm saying it would probable seal the protective flap shut when it expanded.
faceh
21d ago
It seems like the social effects of modernity and the internet are broadly similar everywhere.
Yeah. I just significantly updated my priors on the "problem" with current social norms stemming primarily from the phones, the apps, and the algorithms.
Still reserving a lot of space for Covid just nuking people's social skills in general, though. The phones might just be what is 'locking' them into a bad equilibrium.
Hahahahahahaaa oh its a challenge.
The core group of people I invite go to my gym, which is a mix of single and coupled people, and I try to invite the most agreeable sorts to come and leverage that to get some of the flightier ones to show. I find mediocre success.
You seem to notice the same trend I have. It is very hard to cajole any decently attractive single lady out to an event unless they have reassurances there are other ladies there. And that becomes a Catch-22.
So when I try to play mastermind, I invite out the couples who are friends with the single ladies so I can then invite the single ladies and reassure them "Oh X and Y are coming too!"
I begin to pick up on certain dynamics. As in Abby won't show up unless Britney is also there, but Britney only shows up if Charlie is going, and Charlie and Derek are best friends so if Charlie's there then Derek is likely to show, and Derek is a bit of a loser so he kinda deters others from coming but you gotta invite Charlie so Britney will so show Abby will show, and risk Derek being there too.
I give up on trying to orchestrate things precisely, but just be as strong a 'center of gravity' as I can so hopefully I can pull people into my orbit through pleasant but persistent pressure.
Anyway, all of this has led me to realize why Club Promoters have such an 'important' job. Keeping a roster of hotties who will actually show up if you text them so you can reliably promise attractive women will be at your event, which instantly raises the profile because now its more appealing for other attractive single ladies to arrive, and of course men will flock there if they can be in the presence of pretty women.
Hot single ladies are an ideal nucleus to build an event around, I'd wager, but they're also not the type to lift a damn finger themselves, and they have options so its always finicky to get even one to show, let alone 6 or more.
I get small rewards in this life. I don't claim to be completely altruistic when I do this.
The event I hosted this past Saturday (UFC 324 watch party) was a success overall, and I have a decent number of leftover snacks to munch on for the week. People love to bring beer to the event (even though I supply plenty) so I have a beer fridge that literally never runs dry and a couple stacks of various beverages on standby.
I am Quixotically DEFYING the new social order that arose Post-Covid. There WAS a time when people would just host small gatherings spontaneously on regular enough basis that you could usually have one to go to every other weekend. After Covid nuked this and people got used to food delivery and vidya at home, everyone's energy level for both hosting and going out seemed cut in half and they haven't even tried to recover it?
But to the extent my goal is to re-awaken the local social life and inspire others to also host in their spaces, I'm clearly not making much progress.
In the friend group's main chat, people like to semi-obviously hint when they would like to do some event or other, which then falls on me to make the actual plan and demand others' commitments to it so it actually happens. I do some operant conditioning and lavish praise on anyone who actually puts forth and executes on event ideas themselves, and I make SURE to show up to those and raise the energy level.
I will not go quietly into the night. At the very least, give people the experience of socializing so those skills don't devolve.
Its an interesting question that depends at least in part on what my overall objective in talking to this person is. In "preserve the relationship" mode I usually couch it to be minimally offensive to the asker and to invite them to "agree" with me on something rather than immediately sort me into the 'enemy' basket.
But when I'm feeling spicy I like to say "well I'd love to see the current Federal Government catch fire and burn down entirely" which is entirely honest as to my core feelings but doesn't actually reveal whether I agree with or don't agree with the current administration's actions.
I had the version of this happen VERY recently where the woman I'm casually interested in ask "are you a Democrat or Republican" and get very insistent I answer. I was stumped just a bit because... well why would you just assume those are the only two options on the table?
Whereas the strictly true answer is "I've been unaffiliated since High School and thus I am not registered as Republican OR Democrat", I opted to say "I voted for Trump, I voted for Desantis, and I did a straight Republican ticket in the last two elections." Somehow this wasn't quite good enough, and I guess her REAL goal was to very cleanly identify which tribe I personally identified with. Fair enough. So I then said "I watched the Turning Point halftime show, not the Bad Bunny one." (not mentioned: "watched" means I sat in a bar that had swapped channels, but I was not particularly interested in the Bad Bunny show so I mostly zoned out while it was on.)
We're still talking, though. She's openly Republican so I guess I passed the "not a libtard" smell test.
I don't mind answering the question, but I dislike the vast majority of discussions based around tribal politics (present company excluded) so I will always try to shift the topic to something still 'controversial' but where I can't 100% predict their response ahead of time based on tribal signifiers.
More options
Context Copy link