Hardeehar

I 100% agree with this

That's arguable. But she did her first blood donation and it took her around 3 hours.

Fasting is a good way to achieve that.

But as far as donating goes, there may be a day you might be the recipient of much needed blood donations.

Had a lady need 12 bags of blood after almost exsanguinating following a really complicated delivery (both survived). She never gave blood before due to fear of needles, but now is a regular blood donor because of the importance of it. She told me to not wait and just start giving.

Time to start donating blood regularly. Someone else will get plastics sure, but they'll need the blood for more pressing reasons.

Apologies if English isn't your first language it's called reading between the lines.

Ill draw it out for you: If people would pay that much (yes insane) money to go to "shit" and mediocre institutions here in the states, what does it say about the options they have locally?

Yup and paying insane amounts of money to get in, too.

Hold on, in advanced education here in my area of the states, almost half the population of students in classes I see are of Chinese or Indian backgrounds and most are here on foreign visas.

If the education is so shit, why are there so many foreign students studying here and paying insane amounts of money to do so.

I expected more from an educated person.

But if you don't want to define the word and cut off the conversation, then you've just left me with the belief you are using eugenics as a "scary" word hoping to sound smart. I believe you can represent your field better.

I hope you have a good one.

For anybody still reading: The AI tool is not for eugenics, the researchers should not be punished, it's not racist to use unethical data, and it helps people who might otherwise die to a horrible disease. It doesn't help all the people we want it to right now, but hopefully, in the future it will be an amazing tool for everyone.

Define eugenics for me, please.

You're saying the tool in its current form with it's data "seems pretty intentionally eugenics" and..."a tool for eugenics". And since you said the people who made that data, the AI tool, and those who are now using it are also responsible for anything bad ...they are by your supposed extension eugenicists/racists and whatever other grotesque and immoral thing you can think of. Because your link says that regardless of intention, the AI engineers should ABSOLUTELY be punished.

They have to fix it, of course, so it can become something other than a tool for eugenics as it is currently. Can you see where I think your argument goes way beyond rational?

Would I have had this conversation with you if the tool worked really well on only black people and allowed white people to die disproportionately? I honestly can't say. But I feel you would be quiet on the issue. Am I wrong?

I don't think using the data, as it is, to save lives makes you racist or supports eugenics. You seem to believe it does. That's what I'm getting after. That's why I think we are reading different books.

Once again...define eugenics for me, please.

Regardless, nothing I have said means that I don't recognize institutional racism and that I don't want the data set to become more evenly distributed so it takes into consideration the full spectrum of human life and helps ALL people.

I know what bioethics is and how it applies to research and engineering. Your response doesn't seem to really get to the core of what I'm saying: which is that the people making the AI tool aren't racist.

Help me out: what do the researchers creating this AI screening tool in its current form (with racist data) have to do with it being a tool of eugenics? That's quite a damning statement.

I'm assuming you have a much deeper understanding of what kind of data this AI screening tool uses and the finances and whatever else that goes into it. I feel that the whole "talk with Africa" to balance out the data is not great sounding and is overly simplified.

Do you really believe that the people who created this AI screening tool should be punished for using this racist data, regardless of provable intent? Even if it saved lives?

Does this kind of punishment apply to the doctor who used this unethical AI tool? His knowledge has to go into building it up somehow. Is he, by extension, a tool of eugenics too?

I understand ethical obligations and that we need higher standards moving forward in society. But even if the data right now is unethical, and it saves lives, we should absolutely use it.

Eugenics??? That's crazy.

So you'd prefer that they don't even start working with this screening method until we have gathered enough data to satisfy everyones representation?

Let's just do that and not do anything until everyone is happy. Nothing will happen ever and we will all collectively suffer.

How about this. Let's let the people with the knowledge use this "racist" data and help move the bar for health forward for everyone.

I never said that the data gathered over decades wasn't biased in some way towards racial prejudice, discrimination, or social/cultural norms over history. I am quite aware of those things.

But if a majority of the data you have at your disposal is from fair skinned people, and that's all you have...using it is not racist.

Would you prefer that no data was used, or that we wait until the spectrum of people are fully represented in sufficient quantities, or that they make up stuff?

This is what they have. Calling them racist for trying to help and create something to speed up diagnosis helps ALL people.

The creators of this AI screening tool do not have any power over how the data was collected. They're not racist and it's quite ignorant to reason that they are.