I think we heard this all before, AI can be good at analyzing images, perhaps arriving at judgments that are more accurate than professionals. But, we are decades away from replacing radiologists who know the nuances of the medical theories required to interpret the images.

That sentiment seems to be appropriate. Microchips can do fewer things in 1968 compared to 1998. So, that is 30 years.

ChatGPT is currently unimpressive to me. But in 15-30 years... let's see. I guess I have really high expectations of artificial intelligence that were not met. I really wanted a rapid deployment of self-driving cars, and it appears that AI is not yet good enough to drive cars.

>I 100% would trust a PROVEN self-driving system over any human any day.

Me too. I am sure 90% of people would think the same, even those who are pessimistic about self-driving cars such as myself. The question is when would self-driving systems be proven and accessible. I think by 2040.

The terms "nanowire" and "UC Irvine" gave me deja vu. So I decided to go back to a wikipedia Wikipedia article on "nanowire", which I recently read.

Wonderful plagiarism. I found the below link from the Wikipedia article.

https://phys.org/news/2016-04-chemists-battery-technology-off-the-charts-capacity.html

Almost the same thing. It was written in April 20, 2016.

>The researchers think the goo plasticizes the metal oxide in the battery and gives it flexibility, preventing cracking.
>
>"The coated electrode holds its shape much better, making it a more reliable option," Thai said. "This research proves that a nanowire-based battery electrode can have a long lifetime and that we can make these kinds of batteries a reality."

Both from the linked article and the phys.org link.

Unfortunately, the roll out will be a decade long process.

It is best not to pay attention to this unless you enjoy waiting.

Here's a nice clip from Thank You For Smoking.

Jeff: Mr. Naylor is here to see if we can get cigarettes into hands of somebody other than the usual RAVs.

Nick Naylor: RAVs?

Jeff: Russians, Arabs, and villains.

Naylor: Yes, oh well, then, yes. I guess that is why I'm here.

Headline is inspired by Waymo offering a public service (requiring no NDAs) in downtown Phoenix. This is significant because it is the first major commercial launch of autonomous ride hailing in a major US city with no restrictions on time of operation.

Self-driving cars are the future! That's what Waymo's incremental progress means. "Incremental" also means that your 10 year old will get a driver's license. We are far away from the end goal of having autonomous vehicles make a a significant portion of vehicle miles traveled. But notable progress is being made.

Self-driving cars are real, but not present.

Ash Ketchum also didn't have to go school and he lived off of government services, since he can sleep at Pokemon centers and get food there. I guess that allowed him to live a life of adventure.

I'd think we would love a 50% survival rate for pancreatic cancer in the next 20 years.

>Since we're about to enter a new economic downturn are we going to see more of these self driving systems and robots come into the labor market?

Probably not. The article did not even make the bold calm that the pilot program will feature a fully driverless truck with no safety driver.

Driving is so hard that this will take many decades to roll out. We are not even close to solving the problem of driving a car.

Yeah, it is a diminished vision of the future. You only have something that can reduce the possibility of recurrence or reduce its emergence in vulnerable individuals, but not effectively treat it when it occurs.

It is possible that many cancers could be arrested in 50 years, like HIV with antiretrovirals.

Article states that the vaccine may be available in ten years or so. A potential use for these vaccines is to vaccinate those with a predisposition for cancer, such as those with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations or those who had cancer and are at risk for re-occurrence, as oppose who have advanced cancer.

Oddly enough, the article agrees with my negative assessment on the progress of oncology over the last few decades:

>A breakthrough like that can’t come soon enough, say breast cancer
advocates. “I was diagnosed in 1987, and I wasn’t treated much
differently from what is available today, in terms of surgery and
chemotherapy,” says Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer
Coalition, an advocacy organization. “Yes, there is a lot of focus on
immunotherapy, and that’s exciting from a research perspective. But it
hasn’t really made a difference in women’s lives yet.”

There are a few more targeted therapies.