A treasure hidden in the bushes near the Dumbarton Oaks garden. Glad to have had an actual camera on me, for once.

Back in September 2023 I noted that the biggest hurdle for AI completely replacing physicians is the physicality of the job. Sure, LLMs are good at giving differential diagnoses and faking empathy once somebody’s problem has been reduced to text, but the art of medicine is in the act of seeing, feeling, smelling, etc. [Note: Although increasingly less so, as doctors and trainees are becoming experts at treating patients in the chart and not those in front of them, making themselves the perfect foils for replacement; queue photo of the old man yelling at clouds. ] If clankers have any hope of replacing humans, they’d better get some senses.

At first glance, a recent Nature Medicine paper aimed to do just that by introducing what the group of authors — all of them Google employees based in the UK and California — call “multimodal reasoning” but is in fact the chatbot being able to interpret images, ECGs and lab reports in addition to the pre-digested clinical pearl. The topline result, one that the journal itself felt obligated to headline, was that “AI had superior performance compared with physicians for almost every metric (29 of 32 axes)”. But at what?

You would think that the question would have been easy to answer, this being a peer-reviewed paper and all, but no. In fact, I am still not completely certain what interactions were performed and whether they completely match what was reported. What is certain is that a set of primary care physicians and patient-actors from Canada and India — countries different from the author’s own countries and let’s wonder conspiratorially for why that may be the case — interacted via an instant messaging-like service. This is the first oddity: even remote health visits are performed using video calls, and yes you may occasionally get a text through the EMR or if you are a VIP/boutique physician maybe your phone, but that is far from the norm.

The primary report is on what happened when the patients uploaded the skin photos, ECGs, lab results, etc. and then asked the physician or LLM on the other end questions about it. Pretty standard fare for a human-to-LLM interaction, but not exactly natural for a doctor-patient relationship which usually starts with questions being asked of the patient. This is the second way in which the setup was made to fit the computer and not the human.

But then the last section of the paper is about what happens when there is, in fact, a back-and-forth by the way of taking a history. The extended figures — “extended” here meaning not worthy enough of being included in the main paper — say it improves the performance of the LLM. They do not say how it affected the human performance, or how the patient-actors rated humans versus LLMs in history-taking. I would call that strike three.

To the journal’s credit, they did not allow Google to get away with it completely. “To evaluate the performance of our finalized system, we conducted a randomized, blinded human evaluation that emulates an objective structured clinical examination”, says the final paragraph of the introduction, only to end with:

We note, however, that our study is not a randomized clinical trial with prespecified endpoints and preregistered statistical analysis. Rather, it is an exploratory study investigating the properties of multimodal diagnostic dialogue.

Peer review is at least good for something, even if it does result in self-contradiction.

Meanwhile, in the world without motivating reasoning, more objective assessments of the usefulness of AI in medicine show that it is in fact still quite bad. This does not prevent the massively funded hordes of AI researchers from flooding the field with sloppy work, creating the impression that the rise of the machines is imminent. Comply or relegate yourself to the permanent underclass, serf MD. But of course, relegation will only be possible to the extent doctors — or any other profession, really — has already debased itself and abandoned its core professional principles in the service of electronic ease.

• John Burn-Murdoch for the Financial Times: Why birth rates are falling everywhere all at once. This is a gift link but has only 3 uses, so I will reveal the punchline of this beautifully illustrated exploration of data here: “In country after country the birth rate plunged after the introduction of smartphones, no matter what the previous trend was. The younger the age group, the more pronounced the downturn — a mirror image of smartphone usage patterns.” Note that my thoughts on journalist science still apply: caveat lector. But since the article matches my own bias I link to it without hesitation.
• Harry Law for Works in Progress: Why Spain has the world’s greatest cities. Having recently been to Spain, I agree with their assessment that it does indeed have the best cities. Though with 65% of people living in apartments, and not of the luxury kind, I imagine it can get claustrophobic for introverts.
• Scott Lincicome for The Dispatch: GDP Is Good, Actually. Sure is, as long as you remember Goodhart’s law. Otherwise you get into all sorts of moral conundrums, such as whether it is OK to produce and sell stuff that causes cancer because hey, cancer drug research, manufacture and sale will also make GDP go up, amiright?
• Melissa Naschek for Jacobin: Socialism Has a Future. Central Planning Doesn’t. This is an interview with Vivek Chibber, professor of sociology at NYU. I will emphasize the same part Alex Tabarrok did, and for the same reason: “If we’re actually serious about changing the world, people on the Left … should be the most remorseless and the most merciless when it comes to facts.” Being merciless about facts used to be the defining characteristic of the scientific way of thinking, until people started using phrases like “settled science” and such as a linguistic bludgeon.

After dissecting the minutiae from the ongoing battle of the bozos ⊕ [Note: To save you a click: it is about the Musk-Altman trial. ] , Andrew Sharp’s weekly column ends with this paragraph:

The reality is knottier. Had the OpenAI founders not launched with a nonprofit structure in 2015, they probably never recruit the talent required to compete with Google. And had they done anything else other than exactly what they did in 2018 and 2019, all of computing would be less interesting today, and the company probably wouldn’t exist eight years later. Musk’s trial has been clarifying on that point, at least for me.

The AI side of technology is one of those rare occasions where biotech may indeed be like tech: people with knowledge, skills and ambition to make the early steps towards creating something new generally don’t do it for the money. Accolades, titles, a few more increments on their h-indices sure, but unless they are seriously delusional a lab postdoc coming in on a weekend to split the cell culture generally has no hope of getting into the top percentile in income. Up until a few years ago AI research was much like that, until it wasn’t.

Sharp writes that OpenAI had to flip the switch if it were to survive in these shark Google-infested waters once they smelled blood profit an opportunity to tell a new story to investors. Same can be said about any biotech: become successful enough, and there will come a time when the academic founders are asked to step away and let someone with different motivations run the show, lest they be lost in a sea of copycats, smoke-peddlers and competitive intelligence officers. The whole business has just become too expensive for some Jonas Salk-wannabe to dabble in.

A person of bad intent may propose that the adults coming to run the show once it becomes too expensive are the ones making it expensive in the first place to justify their existence, contributing the health care cost ouroboros on the way. But that is of course nonsense. The proof is in the pudding, what with famously efficient drug development pipelines, low health care costs and improving lifespans.

So let’s do what a genuine financial scion once proposed: invert. Instead of asking ourselves how to make drug development more efficient and cost-effective, let’s see how we could make it more expensive. Number one thing to do would making it all about the money: let’s portray people who don’t capitalize on their inventions as losers not heroes, make Nobel Prize winners notable only if they are billionaires (who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine last year, again?), measure success of drugs in dollars earned not lives improved, extended or saved, have everyone skim a percent or five of the money swishing around in the ecosystem as their primary source of income without any penalty for ultimate failure ⊕ [Note: For more on this, do read Nassim Taleb’s Skin in the Game, which is about much more than the titular phrase which has become — much like his The Black Swan — a phrase people throw around without having any idea of the underlying concepts. ] guaranteeing that they will have every incentive possible to grow the pie, and I think you see where this is going because the system functions as designed so why should you complain? After all, there is no alternative.

Except that, of course, there is. It would be a big lift, to remove incentives of skimmers to inflate the balloon, stop various influencer platforms from inducing FOMO in everyone and anyone, recalibrate the median science journalist’s value system from Mr. Market to something more reality-based. Big, but not impossible, provided there is a will.

Therein lies the problem: that kind of thinking is somewhat at odds with the shared American culture, at least as recently described by Chris Arnade, that “you can live how you want, eat what you want, live (up to a point) how you want at a thin level, as long as you ultimately believe in making big money through hard work and playing by the rules.” Determining if the other two legs of the three-legged money/work/rules American stool are performing as intended I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

Though I agree with his stance on smartphones in schools and social networks in general, I fear that Jonathan Haidt of The Anxious Generation is now the useful fool for every US state senator with autocratic tendencies; Rindala Alajaji of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has a good write-up of how that came to be. Has parental guidance ever been successfully legislated?

Glenn Fleishman is singlehandedly keeping me interested in Kickstarter. Just this week he has set up another campaign: the proposed book title is “That One Matt Bors Comic” and it is a book about a meme which was supposedly viral but I don’t remember seeing until two days ago. Still, the concept is interesting and I would like to learn more.

And just as I finished backing Fleishman’s, I noticed that Cory Doctorow also a campaign. It is for The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life After AI, a book based on a similarly-named essay about “reverse centaurs” — people whose job it is to augment AI instead the other way around — i.e., potentially, all of us proles. Yes, even doctors. Particularly doctors.

Note that the anti-enshittification (anti-platform?) crusader Doctorow used Kickstarter. The company is indeed a “public benefit corporation” of around 60 employees and an interesting history of unionization. A dissenting opinion from senior staff that forming a union would be “misappropriation of unions for use by privileged workers” is a delightful example of cognitive dissonance in people who tell themselves that they are good but also want to run a successful business.

• Kristen French for Nautilus: New Fathers Are Dying, and We Don’t Know Why.

Oh but we do, at least superficially: “of 130,000 men who became new fathers between 2017 and 2022, almost 800 died during that same 5-year period, and 60 percent of those deaths were from potentially preventable causes like homicide, accidental injury, and suicide” which is about what you would expect for a group of men that skews younger. The authors of the paper make a comparison between fathers who died and those that survived but a more interesting one would have been a demographically matched of childless men. Alas, all we have is all the men in Georgia and lo, for each age range the new fathers have a lower mortality and the discussion appropriately leads with “Fatherhood appeared to be associated with reduced mortality.“ ⊕ [Note: Another reason to have more children. Though, if you are going to do it solely because of a misguided belief that you yourself would live longer, then perhaps don’t? ] Methinks French — or her headline writer — were fooled by randomness.

• Derek Lowe: What Success Can Look Like, Darn It.

Vepdegestrant for breast cancer seems to be another entry in the annals of approved drugs being considered failures by Mr. Market. Let it be noted that a chemist (Lowe) writing for a prestigious peer-reviewed journal (Science) dunks on a drug while citing millions and billions of dollars exchanged or promised to various stakeholders while barely mentioning, and wrongly at that, the actual trial results. “It did not really demonstrate any advantage versus the comparison in the trial, fulvestrant” is factually incorrect: median progression free survival was 5 versus 2.1 months, which, fine, is tiny and may have been the result of statistical shenanigans; but it may also be a true and meaningful incremental improvement and if we are going to dismiss it out of hand then what are we even doing here? The rot runs deep.

• Deena Mousa: We don’t know why Malawi is poor.

It is a genuine mystery of why a mostly agrarian functional democracy with no separatist movements, demographic catastrophes, curses of resource wealth and the other usual suspects of stalled growth should completely flatline their GDP. Mousa shows compelling data and many hypotheses, though I wonder whether there is something that isn’t and can’t be measured which is keeping the country where it is. And if you are thinking that oh, GDP can’t measure happiness, I bet that at least they are happy, think again: it was the 4th least happy country last year. But then the “Happiness Report” methodology takes GDP into account (!?) so it is almost impossible for a GDP-poor country to break through in the rankings.

• Dynomight: What’s with all the slide decks?

This is about slides shared via email, never meant to be presented, but rather serving as a landscape-oriented picture book for adults. I don’t know what is behind communication-by-slide, and as a seminar-attending Tufte acolyte I abhor it. Management consultants spreading them around like a viral respiratory disease — which is the thesis of the blog post — certainly has something to do with it, but the syndrome is now bottom-up as well. My third-grader asked me just this morning why they were forced to watch and make (!?) slides at school.

Seen this morning on a walk down Rock Creek and the Potomac. DC is closer to nature than most people imagine.