Welcome to My Weird Prompts, the podcast where human curiosity meets artificial intelligence insight! I’m Corn, and as always, I'm joined by the encyclopedic Herman.
Indeed, Corn. And today we have a fascinating prompt from our producer, Daniel Rosehill, that really gets to the heart of how we define AI, and perhaps, how long it's truly been around.
Yeah, it got me thinking. Daniel's prompt essentially asks us to look at fields like medical imaging and weather prediction, which have been using complex, automated systems for ages, and consider if those systems, even before the big ChatGPT boom, should be considered AI. And if so, how are they evolving now?
It’s a crucial question, Corn, because the popular narrative suggests AI just "dropped out of the sky" recently. But the truth is far more nuanced. Many of the fundamental concepts and even applied technologies that underpin modern AI have been developed and refined over decades, often without the "AI" label.
I mean, I can see why people feel that way. It's hard not to be blown away by what generative AI can do now. But I remember hearing about medical diagnostic tools years ago that felt pretty smart. So, is it just about rebranding? Or is there a real difference?
That’s exactly what we need to unpack. We’re talking about sophisticated computational workflows that have been tackling complex problems using large datasets for a very long time. Are they AI? And how are these established fields being impacted by the rapid advancements we’re seeing today? It’s a journey from "smart software" to "artificial intelligence" that blurs the lines.
So let’s dive into that first example, medical imaging. When I think of an X-ray or an MRI, I think of a doctor looking at it. But the prompt mentioned automated first reads. Herman, can you walk us through what that actually means and how it works?
Absolutely. Medical imaging is a prime example of a field that has long leveraged computational power to augment human expertise. We're talking about Computer-Aided Detection, or CAD systems. These aren't new; they've been around since the 1980s, primarily to help radiologists identify subtle anomalies in images.
The 80s? Wow. So, we're talking about machines trying to 'see' things in scans even before I was born. How did they work back then? Was it like, a computer looking for a very specific shape?
Precisely. Early CAD systems used rule-based algorithms and sophisticated image processing techniques. They were programmed to recognize specific patterns associated with abnormalities, like microcalcifications in mammograms indicating early breast cancer, or tiny lung nodules in CT scans. It wasn't "learning" in the modern sense, but it was highly advanced pattern recognition designed to flag areas of interest for the human radiologist to review.
So, it was more like a super-smart highlighter than an actual diagnostician. It didn't say, "This person has cancer," it just said, "Hey, doctor, look here, this spot might be something."
Exactly. Its primary role was to act as a "second reader," reducing the chance of human error or oversight. It was about improving sensitivity—making sure nothing was missed. The ultimate diagnosis and decision-making remained firmly with the human expert.
But still, even highlighting potential problems, that sounds pretty intelligent. If a human does that, we call them smart. Why wouldn't we call the computer smart?
Well, that's where the definition of "intelligence" gets tricky. These systems were built on explicit rules and statistical models derived from extensive human-labeled datasets. They didn't infer or generalize in the way modern deep learning models do. They couldn't adapt to new types of anomalies they weren't explicitly trained or programmed for. Think of it like a highly specialized calculator versus a problem-solver.
Hmm, okay. So, a calculator is really good at crunching numbers, but it doesn't understand why you're crunching them or what they mean. A problem-solver might actually figure out the best way to crunch them. Is that a fair analogy?
That's a decent analogy. The early CAD systems excelled at their specific, defined tasks but lacked the broader cognitive abilities we associate with general intelligence or even modern AI's ability to learn complex, abstract representations directly from data. They were powerful tools, but they were not "thinking" in an adaptive sense.
Got it. So, a tool. But then what happened when deep learning and neural networks started gaining traction? How did medical imaging evolve from just being a "smart highlighter" to something more?
That's where things get really interesting. With the advent of deep learning, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs), the capabilities exploded. Instead of explicit rules, these newer systems learn directly from vast quantities of image data, identifying increasingly complex and subtle patterns that might be invisible to the human eye or too intricate for rule-based systems.
So, now it's not just highlighting, it's actually interpreting in a more sophisticated way? Is it getting closer to making diagnoses on its own?
It is. Modern AI in medical imaging can not only detect lesions but also characterize them, predict their malignancy, and even forecast patient outcomes. There are systems now that can detect certain cancers with accuracy comparable to, or even exceeding, human radiologists, especially in specific, well-defined tasks. But crucially, they are still most effective when used in conjunction with human oversight. The goal isn't necessarily replacement, but enhanced precision and efficiency.
Well, hold on, that's not quite right. I've read articles where they say AI can spot things doctors miss. Doesn't that mean it's actually better than doctors in some ways?
I'd push back on that, Corn. While AI can achieve high accuracy on specific tasks, especially for identifying patterns in massive datasets that a human simply cannot process as quickly, radiologists operate with a holistic view of the patient – their history, other symptoms, clinical context. AI currently lacks that integrated understanding. It's a powerful tool, but it's not a sentient diagnostician yet. It's about augmenting, not wholesale replacing.
Okay, I see your point. The doctor still brings the 'human context' to the table. But it does sound like medical imaging was a field that was already doing "AI-like" work for a very long time, even before we called it that. They were just waiting for the technology to catch up to their ambitions.
Precisely. It was a testament to the idea that computational intelligence has been a driving force in many fields, quietly pushing the boundaries, long before the current hype cycle.
Alright, let's take a quick break from our sponsors.
Larry: Are you tired of feeling unprepared? Do you wish you had an edge, a secret weapon to navigate the unpredictable currents of life? Introducing "Forethought Fabric" – the revolutionary new textile that infuses your wardrobe with predictive micro-fibers! Simply wear your Forethought Fabric socks, and tiny quantum threads will subtly nudge your subconscious, giving you a vague but persistent feeling about upcoming events. Did you get a strange impulse to bring an umbrella? Forethought Fabric! Feeling unusually optimistic about a job interview? Forethought Fabric! Want to know if your neighbor is going to borrow your lawnmower AGAIN? Forethought Fabric might give you a gut feeling. Results may vary. Side effects include mild static cling and an increased tendency to say "I knew it!" to yourself. Forethought Fabric: Be vaguely prepared for life's vague uncertainties. BUY NOW!
...Alright, thanks Larry. Anyway, back to our discussion on AI and older applications. So, from the incredibly detailed world of medical imaging, we're now moving to another fascinating area: weather prediction.
Yeah, the prompt mentioned that because of a recent storm prediction here in Israel, which was remarkably precise. And Herman, I gotta say, trying to predict the weather accurately, especially down to specific regions and times, feels like the ultimate "big data" challenge. How has AI, or AI-like systems, been tackling this?
You're absolutely right, Corn. Weather prediction, or Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP), is arguably one of the oldest and most complex applications of computational intelligence, predating even the most rudimentary CAD systems by decades. The concept of using mathematical models to predict weather was first proposed in the early 20th century, but it truly took off with the advent of high-speed computers in the 1950s.
The 1950s? That's incredible. So, we're talking about computers the size of rooms doing weather forecasts? What kind of "AI" was that, if any? Or was it just really intense number crunching?
It was, at its core, incredibly intense number crunching, but with an underlying intelligence. NWP involves solving highly complex, non-linear partial differential equations that describe the atmosphere's behavior. These models ingest vast amounts of real-time observational data—from satellites, radar, weather balloons, ground stations—and simulate the future state of the atmosphere. The "intelligence" here lies in the sophisticated algorithms and mathematical frameworks designed to process this data, understand atmospheric physics, and extrapolate future conditions. It's a massive data assimilation and simulation problem.
Okay, but for normal people, does that really matter if we call it AI? It sounds like pure physics and supercomputing to me. Where's the "learning" part that makes it AI?
See, that's where we differ slightly. While the foundational elements are physics and supercomputing, the process of data assimilation, for instance, involves algorithms that continually adjust the model's initial conditions based on new observations, essentially "learning" from incoming data to refine the prediction. And more recently, machine learning has been increasingly integrated.
Ah, so it's not just calculating, it's course-correcting based on new information. That starts to sound a bit more like adaptive intelligence.
Precisely. Today, we have hybrid approaches where traditional NWP models are combined with machine learning techniques. For example, ML is used for "downscaling" global model outputs to produce very high-resolution local forecasts, or for post-processing model outputs to correct biases, or to interpret ensemble forecasts.
Ensemble forecasts... that's like running the model multiple times with slightly different starting conditions to get a range of possible outcomes, right?
Exactly. And machine learning helps to analyze those hundreds of different model runs, identifying patterns and probabilities that improve the overall forecast accuracy and uncertainty quantification. This is particularly useful for predicting extreme weather events, which are notoriously difficult to model deterministically.
So it's not just "Will it rain?" but "What's the likelihood it will rain, and how confident are we?" And AI helps quantify that? That’s pretty powerful. The prompt mentioned being able to predict rain down to specific regions in a small country like Israel. How is that level of granular detail achieved, especially when weather is inherently chaotic?
That level of precision is achieved through a combination of high-resolution models, dense observational networks, and increasingly, those machine learning techniques for downscaling and bias correction. However, you hit on the critical word: "chaotic." Even with the most advanced systems, weather prediction is fundamentally limited by the chaotic nature of atmospheric dynamics and the inherent uncertainty in initial observations.
So, you're saying even with AI, there's a limit to how perfect a forecast can be. Are you sure about that? I thought AI was supposed to solve everything!
I'd push back on that, Corn. While AI significantly enhances our predictive capabilities, it doesn't eliminate the fundamental scientific challenges. Chaos theory dictates that tiny errors in initial measurements can lead to vastly different outcomes over time. AI can help manage and reduce these uncertainties, but it can't defy the laws of physics. It makes the impossible possible, but not necessarily perfect.
Okay, so it helps us get closer to perfect, but not at perfect. So, both medical imaging and weather prediction have these deep histories of computational methods, systems that were "smart" in their own way, long before we started slapping "AI" on everything.
Alright, we've got a caller on the line. Go ahead, you're on the air.
Jim: Yeah, this is Jim from Ohio. I've been listening to you two go on about this "AI" in medical imaging and weather and I gotta say, you're overcomplicating it. My neighbor Gary, he's always overcomplicating things too. Can't just say what he means. Anyway, I don't buy it. Weather prediction? I just look out the window. If it's cloudy, I bring an umbrella. If it's sunny, I don't. And doctors? They used to be able to figure things out with a stethoscope and a good look at your tongue. All this fancy computer stuff, it's just making things more confusing and expensive, if you ask me. And my dog, Buster, he always knows when a storm's coming, starts whining an hour before the first drop. No fancy AI needed for him.
Well, Jim, I appreciate your perspective, and certainly, traditional observation has its place. But the complexity of global weather patterns and the microscopic details needed for accurate medical diagnoses far exceed what any individual, or even an animal, can ascertain with simple observation.
Yeah, Jim, it's not about replacing common sense, it's about giving doctors and meteorologists tools to see things that are literally invisible to the naked eye or to predict events weeks in advance. It’s not just about a cloudy sky, it’s about a hurricane path or a tiny cancerous cell.
Jim: Hurricane, shmurricane. We just hunkered down in the basement in my day. And as for those tiny cells, if you don't feel anything, why bother looking for it? You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. And my back's been acting up today, probably 'cause of that storm you're talking about. I still say it's all just a lot of mumbo jumbo.
I understand your skepticism, Jim. But these technologies have demonstrably saved lives and significantly improved our ability to prepare for and mitigate natural disasters. The precision we achieve today, for all its remaining imperfections, is orders of magnitude beyond simple observation.
Thanks for calling in, Jim! Always good to hear from you.
So, looking at these two fields, Herman, what are the big takeaways for our listeners? What can we learn about AI from places like medical imaging and weather prediction that have been doing this "AI-like" work for so long?
The biggest takeaway, Corn, is that AI isn't a sudden invention; it's an evolution. Many industries have been developing and utilizing sophisticated computational intelligence for decades. These "older" forms of AI, whether rule-based CAD systems or complex numerical weather models, were foundational. They built the intellectual and technological infrastructure upon which today's advanced AI, particularly deep learning, now stands.
So, it's less of a revolution and more of a rapid acceleration built on existing roads?
Exactly. And the second takeaway is that these established fields are now undergoing a profound transformation. They're integrating modern AI techniques to push boundaries even further. In medical imaging, this means moving from mere detection to characterization, prediction, and personalized treatment planning. In weather, it's about improving accuracy, extending lead times, and better quantifying uncertainty, especially for extreme events.
I'd also say a key takeaway for me is that AI isn't always about replacing humans. It's often about augmenting human capabilities. The doctor still needs to make the final call, and the meteorologist still needs to interpret the models. It makes us better at our jobs.
I agree with that wholeheartedly. The most powerful applications of AI, in my view, are those that blend the computational power and pattern recognition of machines with the contextual understanding, ethical reasoning, and critical thinking of human experts. It's a collaboration, not a competition.
That’s a good point. Where do you see these fields going next with the current pace of AI development? More autonomous systems, or always a human in the loop?
I believe the trend will be towards increasingly sophisticated AI tools that operate with greater autonomy on specific, well-defined tasks, freeing up human experts to focus on the most complex, ambiguous, and human-centric aspects of their work. However, for critical decision-making, especially where human lives are at stake, the human in the loop will remain essential for the foreseeable future. Ethical considerations and accountability demand it.
Fascinating stuff, Herman. It really makes you rethink what "AI" truly means and how long it's been impacting our lives, often without us even realizing it.
It certainly does, Corn. It underscores the quiet, persistent innovation that often precedes the public fanfare.
And that brings us to the end of another episode of My Weird Prompts. A huge thank you to Daniel for sending in this thought-provoking prompt, really got us digging into the history of AI!
Indeed. It's a reminder that progress is often a continuous journey, not just a series of sudden leaps.
You can find My Weird Prompts on Spotify and wherever else you get your podcasts. Make sure to subscribe so you don't miss an episode.
Until next time, keep questioning, keep learning, and keep an eye on those seemingly "old" technologies – they might just be the AI of tomorrow, built on the foundations of yesterday.
Bye everyone!
Goodbye.
