I read the article, I read the AI's verdict, I read the comments here, and I still don't know if OP does or does not have a tear in their tendon!
The AI doesn't present evidence I can understand, it doesn't even present a plausible explanation why someone could conclude it is a tear.
The main things that made OP suspicious are the possibly unnecessary shockwave therapy. Which seems harmless. And using a homeopathic gel that I would classify as more of a herbal medicine because it contains several ingredients I know people use for shoulder pain, and some even in concentrations that might even have an effect.
If this is the best rebuttal AI can come up with I would trust the diagnosis. But then OP never trusted the diagnosis and now they have several they cannot.
I would definitely be wary using the more advanced super resolution schemes. It took some work preventing it from drawing faces everywhere.
MRI is already a form of compressed sensing, I would much prefer statistical forms of super resolution to ones based on training data. Even if it is only trained on MRIs it will see some noise and plausibly expand it into whatever disease fits.
For what it is worth they have now added a global kill switch for AI features. Though I appreciate the local translation feature so I'm inclined to keep it on just for that.
Nope private data about people is published unintentionally regularly, Netflix history and medical records being some of the notable examples.
People are bad at making the tradeoff because they consistently underestimate the amount of information that is leaked. Forcing them to leak safe amounts of information is the right way.
Not sharing or collecting the data could in some cases be better but there is clear value in this data so the optimal amount to store and make public is not 0.
Not really, it has to be random in a predetermined fashion to be considered differential privacy. It is reversible in the way that someone shouting over an aicraft producing white noise is intelligible.
I guess someone could fiddle with the noise, but then why not nudge the originals? Or more insidiously, control what is published?
That's precisely what the phrase means. People are capable of evil acts just to earn more money or advance their career. There is no real malice involved, just wilful ignorance. Though that raises the question whether there even is a meaningful difference between the two.
Based on how many tests they did and the confidence intervals they got it's associated with fuck all. Doing lots of tests and then pointing to the few where the lower bound of the effect size was marginally above 0 proves very little.
At any rate their main marker for intelligence showed an impressive p=90%, so whatever cognitive effects were present they've not made them any smarter (at 10).
If you bring overflow into the mix things become a lot more complicated. You likely don't even need 32 bits, the numbers 2 and 3 might be enough (I don't know for sure or if there's a quick way to check).