Re: Paris : In Rush For Profits, AI Safety Issues Are Ignored

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2025-02-13, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 03:50:11 -0500, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>

   The "a few mistakes are OK" logic WILL be applied.

>
It's often sanitized with that lovely phrase "collateral damage".
>

During my first exam with my current primary about 20 years ago she
offered a PSA test but explained that there are a lot of false positives
that scare the hell out of people. She would order the test if I wanted or
we could go the traditional route. I passed on the test.

>
I went the other way.  I had been getting a DRE (digital rectal exam,
a.k.a. the finger) every year for 10 years with negative results.
My wife suggested a PSA, and I figured I could look at a number
without freaking out.  The result came back 20 (where 4 is considered
cause for concern).  I calmly asked for another test.  It came out
the same, making it less likely it was a false positive.  Next step
was a biopsy (8 on the Gleason scale), which led to a radical
prostatectomy.  If I had opted for blissful ignorance I'd probably
be dead by now.
>

At this point I've probably reached the status of men who die with, but
not from, prostate cancer.

>
Me too - but I'm still watching my PSA.  It started slowly creeping
up again, but a round of hormone therapy knocked it back down.
Gotta keep weeding the garden...
>
Please, guys, if you're over 50, get a PSA test.

Nah, I prefer my dignity. I've had a good life, so what do a few decades here or there matter in the end? =)