quantumwoke

Wow, what a horrific article. Not the last time that OpenAI has blood on its hands.

I think this does downplay the vulnerability, since it assumes that teams using tailscale SSH have a lax security posture. I would hope that a security conscious team has accounts with least privilege available i.e. no root access. Please don't discount this critical vulnerability.

This might be one of the most consequential S-1s in the next decade. There's a part of me that's terrified, like we're on the precipice of financial or societal collapse. I suppose that could be a sign of the times.

While I agree the job market is tough right now, for context OP is living in Australia in what looks like a regional town, so set expectations accordingly.

I understand what codemode is from other blog posts, and I think this is a suboptimal explanation. It seems that you are explaining it at the wrong level each time, either too deep (here) or too high (elsewhere in-thread when you talk about 'hands' and 'brain').

AI was able to suggest a test for four years and it didn't, and I'm wondering why it didn't.

I think this is where there is simply not enough information in the post. Fibroids can change in size over time. That being said, there are multiple types of fibroids apparently so it may be a type that wouldn't show up on ultrasound.

I got sent this post by a friend yesterday and I read it with my wife (physician). It was interesting although the selective inclusion of details as part of writing a compelling narrative made it difficult to interpret the experience of using AI.

The post seems to portray the fibroid as objectively the cause of the symptoms, although there is no actual evidence of that. My wife tells me that fibroids grow and shrink in size over time, and that larger studies trying to quantify fibroids as a cause of infertility have been inconclusive. A point in time MRI seems to be correlation rather than causation.

It seems the common theme using AI for personal health issues is that post writers (partly due to privacy and length concerns) leave out the gory details like a full timeline of what tests were suggested, what they showed, how many providers were visited, and what treatments were trialled. The timeline is not really clear in this case, but clearly a lot of expensive tests, treatments, and providers happened in the almost four (!) years since they started using AI. Some of those interventions might have happened due to AI advice, and there are clues to this like the mention of possible endometriosis in the biopsy result. Unfortunately, there is just not enough info in the post to know.

That being said, it's clear that AI is helpful for explaining and assisting in advocating for health and luckily there was a positive outcome. Hopefully we can work out the optimal way to incorporate it into the health system.

What was your issue if you don't mind me asking? It's really hard to verify efficacy otherwise.

In this case it took roughly four years for AI to suggest a test. How should we interpret the utility of AI in this situation?

It's so rare in adults it's got the cute name maturity onset diabetes of the young (MODY).

Some observations:

1. It seems at least possible that some of the proof of NS was contained in the training data, making it less novel.

2. The formalisation of mathematics into lean has been an underappreciated force multiplier on discovery.

I was six months ahead of vo.codes, well aware. Anyway, UGC was a good pivot and wish you all the best.