TaupeRanger

So the absolute risk of recurrence/death on Keytruda alone was 30%, reduced to 18% with Keytruda plus intismeran. That will definitely make a noticeable difference in this disease if the real world results hold.

You wouldn't have made this comment if that were true.

Not really - gridification of swing usually defines a certain amount of swing and then gridifies to that exact amount - whether it's a pure triplet swing, something heavier, or lighter.

Very large studies already exist. They’re safe. Fearmongering about side effects is actually harmful at this point, because skepticism could keep someone from getting safe, effective treatment.

“Millions of people live longer healthier lives by reducing cardiovascular and diabetes risk, but their fingernails might be more brittle!” Doesn’t hit the same does it?

Pre-LLMs: anyone can generate ideas, the implementation is what matters

Post-LLMs: anyone can generate implementations, the ideas are what matter

The term "Generative UI" refers to a front-end design approach where an AI model dynamically builds a UI in real time instead of relying on static, hard-coded templates.

Public opinion and politicians will only notice when the job losses are massive, unfortunately. Right now, unemployment rates are still stable. We can only hope they will notice before things fall off a cliff (if they do).

It's like YouTube "Explainer" personalities, like Hank Green and Adam Neely. They do the kind of "learning theater" that makes you feel like you're learning something when you're actually just providing views and ad revenue. You'll come away from a video feeling like you gained knowledge, but:

1) there's a good chance it was subtly misleading (or just wrong)

2) you probably won't ever use the information in any meaningful way and will likely forget all relevant details in a few days

3) you almost certainly could have spent that time better actually doing or creating something - actually doing real learning and making real progress

The taxi driver claim is not really supported by any evidence. There was an article going around in 2024 claiming something like "taxi drivers die at 68", but the study it referenced had all kinds of methodological problems and was not actually designed to estimate occupational life expectancy.

"Sitting" is just a stand in for "having a sedentary lifestyle". Anyone who doesn't exercise will have these issues.

It's not uncharitable, because the system doesn't actually claim to give you an extra day of notice. It would be more accurate to say: "the model can reach a given level of forecast accuracy roughly a day farther in advance". So your question becomes: are there scenarios where I am 80% sure this is a Cat 5 hurricane 3 days before, where I would die if I was only 65% sure it was Cat 5 on that same day? The answer is - probably not, because even in the example used in the PR article, the NHC was already issuing strong early guidance 5 days before landfall.

Actually it doesn't even say that - they claim to have the same "accuracy" at 3 days that older methods have at 2 days. What does that actually get you? Were the older models so much less accurate at 3 days (compared to 2) that it prevented evacuation of key areas? Looking at the paper, it doesn't really seem like this can be answered yet because there's not enough data over a long enough time.

Keep in mind, DeepMind has a very well documented history of releasing enormously hyped up PR pieces with grandiose claims that are never backed up in real world usage, or are simply lies.

All this for a game that has 123 "Mixed" reviews on Steam? My face was twisted in cringe the entire time. Oof.