Hey fellow nerd. What project was it? I'm just curious if I came across it. I loved digging through the solutions repositories every quarter or so -- always something new and legitimately useful.
If AWS forced their teams to "dogfood", it would quickly morph into the Testuo blob monster from Akira -- there are too many products/services popping up too quickly, and the amount of time and knowledge lost to the constant changes would be catastrophic.
Dogfooding is for simpler companies. It's also bullshit and best for product managers and sales. Let tech work with what's best for their specific internal environment.
You want the freedom to make your own uninformed decisions based on data that you don't understand. That's fine.
It's when this inevitably leads to uninformed people making bad decisions for others based on easily available that they don't understand -- that is the problem. We've already seen this with shitty Covid tests. We see it all the time when insurance companies use the cheapest routes to "resolve" specific maladies.
If something can be exploited, it will be exploited in a capitalist economy. And everyone needs healthcare eventually.
There is a reasonable argument to be made that it would be cheaper and better to educate the population about some of this rather than enforcing a requirement to go through someone who is frankly far too educated to be doing this variety of thing.
There's definitely a line; non-medical professionals probably shouldn't be checking their own X-rays for fractures or CAT scans for cancer. On the other hand, I do very much think people could do things like perform and read their own tests for non-life-threatening infections.
Joe Schmoe can swab their own throat, and tell whether there's 1 line or 2. If you want to be super cautious, require a Bluetooth app to read the results and force the user to run through the typical "annoying but not lethal infection" questionnaire doctors give (Is your fever over 102F? Shortness of breath? etc). The app can give warnings that regardless of results, they should seek a doctor.
It would also free up doctors and nurses to do something more valuable than administering tests a child could do. Again, this doesn't apply universally, many medical things require far too much knowledge for Joe Schmoe to do, but I do think there are a lot of things that could be the equivalent of a home blood pressure monitor.
Not sure what you're talking about with covid tests. People either had it or didn't. The decision making process was straightforward. Rest and isolate, or treat something different like the flu. If one was seriously ill, go to the ER. Several Covid medications like Paxlovid were still locked behind a medical professional with Rx power.
People doing crazy things is always going to be a reality, whether there is tests and data out there. At least they could positively know whether they had it or not. Is it a problem that some would be obsessive and test themselves constantly? Sure. But whatever. It's the same problem like with bread and milk before a big storm. Obsessive compulsion will always be a part of the human condition. It's healthy to accept that these behaviors will happen, but to police that behavior at the expense of the educated (that can inform themselves) would be a net loss to society.
> People either had it or didn't. The decision making process was straightforward.
No it wasn't, not at all!
You (and most people) put an awful lot of trust in medical tests, which are frequently wrong (in both directions).
In the case of COVID, there was (and still is, in some circles) the notion of 'exposure'--if you had dinner with someone who then tested positive the next day, should you cancel the NYE party you're hosting in 3 days? Even if you test negative the day of the party, it's a minefield. How much do you tell your guests, and when? Knowing that the party attendance will be halved if you say anything at all.
“ You want the freedom to make your own uninformed decisions based on data that you don't understand. That's fine.”
I think I am pretty capable to look up what a lot of the data means and make decisions based on that. One possible decision may be to consult a specialist.
Bear in mind, it is stated in the article that "It is a well-studied phenomenon that humans react with empathy towards artificial systems that display certain human or animal-like characteristics." Cars, boats, airplanes don't have to have consciousness to have "aliveness" or be worthy of naming and is commonly accepted and internalized by humans everywhere. This falls short of the epistemological religiosity required by "AI is alive" when the only proof that other humans are alive is indeed an act of faith. But I digress.
So a falsifiable hypothesis might be:
Sociopaths have no empathy at all. Their perception that some other empathizes with them or that their empathy with the other is recognized by the other is some random function based on their internal dialogue and whether they think they get a better cookie by stating that empathy exists when prompted by the experimenter. By comparison, people who score higher on some Empathy Scale (tm) state that empathy exists at a higher or lower rate than the sociopathic control group.
HTH. I don't claim that hypothesis personally, as stated that's what I was maybe hoping to find. I'm just a programmer, whether that's programming computers or minds is sometimes unclear.
They probably experience a lot more brain trauma to the point I’m a little wary of assuming they have the same condition as autistics - the etiology might be totally different with a similar symptomology which is the sort of situation the DSM is ill equipped to distinguish between.
The ICD even has the separate concept of CPTSD which imho might fit autistics better.
