I'm sorry, I do not take implied statements lightly in regards to medical.
replyThe only relevant implication is the word “useful”. Clearly we want useful data, that’s obvious.
replyThere is no indication that the data being sampled by midjourney is useful.
replyThe root level comment is talking about their general vision of healthcare. We’re talking about ideal goals here.
replyWhether midjourney helps with those goals or not is a related, but different conversation thread.
The massive data gathering part should only be part of the learning phase of the system imo, once it get a good model of reality it should infer useful knowledge information from few data, like an expert.
replyHard to say it's actually more useful data
replyHuh? You don't have to come up with an interpretation. The brief says it "looks a lot like today's MRIs but at nearly a hundred times the speed". They don't explain why having a hundred times as many MRI images would lead to better diagnostic outcomes. It is not like ultrasound scanning is a new idea, and they don't give any particular reason why this suggestion was not used before (other than "...data?")
replyIt's not just about better diagnostic outcomes. Currently MRIs are a horrible, claustrophobic experience, and MRI machines are so insanely expensive that it is a bigger deal just to prescribe one.
replySo even if it is only as good as an MRI, or even 80% as good as an MRI, if it is much cheaper and much more pleasant to go through, you will get MORE people doing it, and get it prescribed in more situations.
That's at least how I read the benefits, democratization of imaging techniques rather than just improvement.