Talk:1619: Watson Medical Algorithm

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 15:31, 21 December 2015 by (talk) (Idea about humorism)
Jump to: navigation, search

Build environment is still insane since comic #371. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

(Above poster please sign comments with four tildes)

I'm trying to picture Baymax using this algorithm. -- International Space Station (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

"OK, who swapped out Baymax's programming card with a Doomba AI?" VectorLightning (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least the autoconfig isn't as threatening as #416. 07:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that the extra limbs should be removed when there are 100+ and Vitamin D levels checked when the nmbr of limbs is in an acceptable range... does IBM use a ticketing system? 08:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the algorithm as shown in the cartoon has the conditions for those two steps exactly the other way around, making even less sense medically. --Svenman (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems a normal patient would end up mostly unscathed and in an infinite loop in the lower right corner. Benjaminikuta (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Uhm no. You would normally have an oxygen level above 50% of what is expected. (It should be close to 100% if I understand this correctly, which I may not...). This means you have had your skeleton removed. If you survived this you are squeezed until fluid comes out. (Probably not necessary after the skelerectomy). But then you end up in the lower right corner. Of course you can also get there after just getting an oxygen injection, but only directly if you are not comforted when the program tries. If you where comforted you will lose some limbs. And then end up in the lower right corner. No matter what if you are still OK (could be possible) when reaching here, you will be asked about your pain level. And even if you start by saying 0-8 many many times, getting as many scalp massages, you will just get the same question, until you say 10 then your eyes will be removed. But no matter what, if you are asked such a stupid question enough times you will surely at some point say something else than 0-10, and then you will die, as this answer will take you down the last path of the program (and only exit of the cycle according the to glitch mentioned in the title text), and this will end up with the program performing an autopsy on you, thus cutting you up and removing all organs etc. So no you will not be able to go unscathed infinitely, and even if you kept saying 0-8 you would eventually die from thirst. ;) --Kynde (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, normal oxygen saturation is 98-100% in air. If it drops below 95% you will be in trouble, if it drops below 85% you're likely dead. Kev (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This might also partially be a reference to machine learning, which Watson apparently uses: badly designed ML systems often build models which produce the expected results for the training data, but do something unexpected or wrong with real data. See [1]. That said ... 'dissect doctor for parts' doesn't seem like a reasonable response to any training input ;) 10:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The noted "unrelated actions" aren't all entirely unrelated. The coughing blood one is interpreting backwards (so "is patient not coughing up blood because the patient is not here to do so?"), the vitamin D one is somewhat logical (vit D is part of the chain that converts calcium to bone, low vit D can cause bone loss, but high vit D is basically harmless), and the green fluid is slightly sane but too vague (logic appears to be that green fluid indicates severely infected and/or necrotic tissue, for which cauterizing might be a valid treatment step in extreme situations). Weirdly specific might be a better header? 11:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

So what happens if the skeleton has exactly the right number of bones? -- 12:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed this case is not covered, thus making the algorithm faulty even on an abstract logical level. --Svenman (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

the Request organ donation/Remove organs part reminds me of Live Organ Transplants segment in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. --valepert (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

100 could be a reference to 4 in binary (4+ limbs / less than 4 limbs) 12:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe you're correct. Mikemk (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think GlaDOS is a descendent from this Watson. Mikemk (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The part about squeezing and looking for the color of the ooze seems to reference Humorism. The colors match the four humors. 15:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)