mgraczyk

I don't pay for slack any more, I just picked the price of their enterprise plan. Large users probably get big discounts but it doesn't matter, the cutoff where this makes sense financially is probably around 4000 employees even at $10/seat

No they wouldn't have Nobody will write this, AI will write the entire thing. You don't need many people to maintain it

I learn a lot faster now with LLMs.

You could learn the windows APIs much faster if you wanted to learn them

Slack is $45/user/month

Soon you'll be able to write, host, and maintain a fully customizable version for probably 20k/month

If you have a lot of employees this makes sense

The part about pay is wrong, it's not comparing apples to apples.

I've been a staff engineer at Google and other companies, I have been an EM and a very senior IC at big and small companies.

If you're a very good IC, you can make a lot at a small number of good companies

If you're a relatively worse manager you can make a similar amount at many other companies

So the decision tree I would use is (focusing exclusively on compensation), if you're a very good IC, go somewhere willing to pay you >1M/year. If you can't get that you should be a manager

And yet they didn't do that!

Really makes you think about what makes products good

This isn't about privacy rights, it's about war

I'm not suggesting that Anthropics models should be used by foreign governments for domestic surveillance

I'm not worried about foreign governments spying on Americans, as long as the US government is aligned. I'm worried about my own government becoming misaligned

Anthropic doesn't forbid DoW from using the models for foreign surveillance. It's not about harming others, it's about doing what is best for humanity in the long run, all things considered. I personally do not believe that foreign surveillance is automatically harmful and I'm fine with our military doing it

The contract included the agreement, and the government is now trying to change the contract, hence the disagreement

When did he say this?

Fair and sorry about that

Specifically what happened, and I think this is all public now is that prior to 2016 journalists and news organizations argued that Facebook was demoting news for various reasons. In reality it wasn't very engaging so it was automatically demoted. They promised to boost news more in early 2016, but largely as a result of worse engagement and negative experiences (arguing in comments) Facebook started ranking news worse than other content. This all happened in 2016, months before the general election

And while Russia did run ads, it was mostly not political and the political content they ran had very little engagement. Russia mostly focuses on conspiracy theories and undermining American institutions. Facebook was aware of this in 2016 and certainly did not contribute to it intentionally, and I don't believe even by accident of some kind of misguided A/B testing

The reason Facebook got worse for younger people is because younger people stopped posting.

This is lie, I was there and this is not at all what happened

What's the best case scenario for the positive impact of this regulation?

But in this case following security norms would be a mistake. The right thing to take away is that you shouldn't dogmatically follow norms. Sometimes it's better to just build things if there is very little risk

Nothing actually bad happened in this case and probably never will. Maybe some people have their crypto or identity stolen, but probably not a rate rate significantly higher than background (lots of people are using openclaw)

But do you see how crazy that sounds? If we know the numbers, we would just not do the treatment in those cases.

And in reality it's not actually close like this. Early treatment is so overwhelmingly better than it completely dwarfs all considerations of biopsy risk.

Late stage lung cancer has less than half the 5 survival of early stage, and around 50% of lung cancer detection is late stage. That's around 30000 lives you could save every year from just lung cancer.

Let's say you don't protocol for all adults. Typically post CT or PET at most 10% get a biopsy. So let's say we increase the false positives that lead to CT or PET by X% of adults. That's 270M * X additional biopsies. Lung biopsy mortality is under 2%.

So the worst case you need a false positive rate under 5% for this to he net beneficial for lung cancer. That's low but with 3 scans 6 months apart and a good radiologist, it's not unreasonable

I believe I've assumed the worst case for all the quantities. In reality the addition screened people would have much lower CT detection rate than the background population, and biopsy mortality has been decreasing. Plus you can do this for only people above 40 where the benefits are higher

Your claim is equivalent to claiming that most cancer treatment is net harmful btw

and this is obviously false, especially for cancers detected earlier

Nope, this is cope

Tons of diagnostic interventions have been scaled without strong outcome data. For example many clinics now do fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) tests because they are safe, fairly cheap, and patients often pay directly out of pocket so they are easy to make money on.

But the evidence for the diagnostic usefulness of this test is extremely low, multiple meta analysis have concluded.

The reason FeNO tests are done but not MRIs is because FeNO tests are $40

That's not how it works. Without the history of scans spaced out in time, they would typically need a biopsy. Multiple scans over time shows change and growth and improves the likelihood of an accurate triage

And for the first part that doesn't happen in my scenario before the doctor doesn't look at the scans

> What if estimates are influenced by financial reasons by some entity like the hospital or insurer?

It's this one

It doesn't matter that some cancers are hard to diagnose. What matters is that some are not hard, especially if you have multiple scans spanning several years

Did you know optometrists now scan your retina during ordinary eyeglasses appointments? They didn't do this in the past because it was too expensive. But optometrists cannot diagnose or treat based on these scans. They refer you to an opthamologist.

Some day your PCP will do the same with MRIs, but only once they are cheap. For now only rich people have this luxury

> You're saying it as if detection somehow cures cancer, it doesn't.

No, I didn't say the detector would cause cancer to be cured. I said fewer people would die with no downsides. If treatment is sometimes harmful then the detector also fixes that, you'd never treat people without cancer

Yes that is my point. It's about cost

I agree, and I think rationing is the correct thing to do. I just don't like being gaslit by doctors (or would prefer doctors who know better).

And I agree most doctors won't do this, but again I blame the doctors and their training

Yes the machines should definitely get better, but I recommend you do get it if the cost it truly zero. Based on the data in the article it is still worth it despite the low resolution!

You're imagining that the doctor is required to act irrationally or against the patient's interest. I understand that they do act this way, but I'm pointing out that they don't have to!

You walk into a doctor's office and meet for the first time.

Case 1. You have 3 full body MRIs taken 6 months apart in hand and give them to your doctor. Nobody has opened or looked at the scans yet.

Case 2. You do not have a scan yet

You are claiming case 1 will lead to worse outcomes in expectation. I claim that's impossible because the doctor can simply do the following: Without opening the scans, email them to the world's best radiologist. Tell that radiologist "only reply if it is nearly certain the patient has an operable cancer with the information available"

Now there are 4 possibilities.

Case 1 without cancer: nothing happens

Case 2 without cancer: nothing happens

Case 1 with cancer: you maybe survive

Case 2 with cancer: you die

The only reasonable objection to this is "that's expensive"

Great document? I just read the entire thing, it contains no evidence or justification for their claims.

> We can then scan people with problems rather than people with too much money.

Right, this is what it's really about. MRIs are a scare resource and providers need to manage cost. Fortunately I can afford to pay out of pocket, but I'm just annoyed that doctors are so irrational about this

To be clear, it's up to a doctor whether or not to do a "needless biopsy". That has nothing to do with a scan.

Seems like their main concern is "substantial downstream healthcare costs"

I agree, but they are failing to order scans when the probability of finding anything worth biopsying is low because of cost.

This is so obvious it's crazy, our entire world view is misshaped around saving money.

When you walk into a doctor's office, why do they take your blood pressure and temperature? Why do they look at the back of your throat and listen to you breath?

These are all diagnostic procedures with extremely high false positive rates. The reason doctors do these but do not do MRIs is because MRIs are expensive.

If MRIs were free you would get one automatically every time you go to the doctor.

Read my #2 option, which accounts for that

Right, the problem in your model is that the doctors do! I am pointing out that this is a problem with the doctors, not the scan.

Scans are a tool, doctors are not allowed to use them rationally because it would be too expensive, so they don't use them. With an ideal doctor, patient outcomes would be better with a scan than without one, but my claim is that doctors are not ideal.

No doctor would order a full body MRI just to throw out the result in 99% of cases, because *it's too costly*

How can you trigger an invasive procedure if nobody learns the result of the scan?