> it's _git gud_

There are physical limits to detection and technical parameters that make some situations indeterminate even for the best of the 'gud'. It is frustrating that, hearing an argument from many different individuals over a long time, you assume that each speaker is missing the critical insight that you possess.

> but the tools to make scalable, calibrated risk estimates based on large data dumps is getting better every year.

So your suggestion for indeterminate scans is more scans? There is no 'large data dump' personalized to you except for your own imaging.

> if we can't stop a doctor from doing bad things with a piece of data we should shield them from it

The doctor isn't the problem, it's the people who would be seeking out monthly imaging without symptoms

Consider the null space of diagnostic markers, say, the precise shape of a tissue boundary used in early cancer diagnoses that comes out blurry in an imaging system every time. More scans with the same null space will not resolve the null space.

exactly correct. if a bit of knowledge is dangerous, the correct response is not to choose ignorance, it is to get more knowledge about what dangers arise and problemsolve some more there. run it out a few hundred years and it is then no longer dangerous, and strictly better than ignorance.

That's not how the legal system works, though.

If Midjourney says "maybe you have cancer" but your doctor doesn't take it seriously, you might sue if you do end up with cancer. You might even win, regardless of whether "wait and see" was the right approach.

Meanwhile, if your doctor gives you an unnecessary CT scan that rules out cancer, hospital both earns $$$ and the doctor doesn't face legal consequences. Your increased chance of cancer risk from the radiation isn't something you can realistically sue over.

No one is saying that we should stop looking. Especially not the commenter you replied to. They're saying the tech Midjourney presented isn't _gud_ enough to justify frequent scanning.

> This style of argument has always bothered me, because the correction to misdiagnosis or mistreatment is not to stop looking, it's _git gud_.

Exactly this. I mean, even if the scan is really indeterminate, at a minimum you can simply wait, then scan again. If it's truly something serious, it will become determinate at some point. Doing this is still better than nothing and carries no risks of unnecessary procedures.