What an incredible story, Thomas. I had no idea so much crazy stuff was happening behind the curtains at MD Anderson. Fraud always follows the same pattern. In my investigation of Hippocratic AI, which I’m wrapping up (https://open.substack.com/pub/sergeiai/p/hypocritical-ai-the-fast-track-to) - part 2 should be out on Monday - I found that the culprits are the usual suspects: marketing hype, corruption, incompetent leadership, toxic corporate culture, and the tight-knit circle feeding at the VC money trough.
Speaking of sample cherry-picking, almost every peer-reviewed study I’ve seen claiming that AI outperforms doctors was written by authors (and reviewed by peers) who lacked basic statistical knowledge: https://open.substack.com/pub/sergeiai/p/the-nyt-says-ai-doctors-are-more. What is it with medical academic publications? You get a ridiculous number of authors crammed into a four-page article—who are all these people?—yet not one of them catches a simple math error or even bothers to raise a question among themselves.
And then, of course, mass media outlets like The New York Times and CNN pick it up and run with it.
What an incredible story, Thomas. I had no idea so much crazy stuff was happening behind the curtains at MD Anderson. Fraud always follows the same pattern. In my investigation of Hippocratic AI, which I’m wrapping up (https://open.substack.com/pub/sergeiai/p/hypocritical-ai-the-fast-track-to) - part 2 should be out on Monday - I found that the culprits are the usual suspects: marketing hype, corruption, incompetent leadership, toxic corporate culture, and the tight-knit circle feeding at the VC money trough.
Exactly. VCs played no role in the OEA debacle, but IBM did.
Look forward to reading your Part 2!
Speaking of sample cherry-picking, almost every peer-reviewed study I’ve seen claiming that AI outperforms doctors was written by authors (and reviewed by peers) who lacked basic statistical knowledge: https://open.substack.com/pub/sergeiai/p/the-nyt-says-ai-doctors-are-more. What is it with medical academic publications? You get a ridiculous number of authors crammed into a four-page article—who are all these people?—yet not one of them catches a simple math error or even bothers to raise a question among themselves.
And then, of course, mass media outlets like The New York Times and CNN pick it up and run with it.
Peer review is in a crisis—networks of people who review and cite one another uncritically. Most journalists are credulous and innumerate.