The Exchanges

Every argument clarity score on this site is built from rows on this page. Each question and answer was assessed with names hidden, the host's own answers included, on four things from 1 to 5: directness (does it answer the question asked), coherence (do the ideas follow), precision (concrete details and clear references), compression (says a lot per word). The weighted mix (30/30/25/15) is the exchange score. A person's published score averages their exchange scores on raw tape only, at least 8 of them, shrunk toward the cohort mean. Full method →

Gabriel Ott no published score: only 1 usable exchange on raw tape, and a fair score needs 8+ record → ← everyone

Every exchange below was scored with names hidden, four dimensions each from 1 to 5. An exchange's score is 0.30·directness + 0.30·coherence + 0.25·precision + 0.15·compression. The published score averages the raw tape exchange scores and shrinks small samples toward the cohort mean, so five great answers can't beat twenty good ones. Produced feed rows count only toward coarse estimates, never toward a full score.

clear all ✕
1exchanges match
1on raw tape
0redirected or not addressed
Answered raw tape D 5 · C 5 · P 5 · Cm 4 4.85

Q guys have definitely answered why the shift is happening, like a more systems approach, things are more complex. That's kind of obvious to me. The complexity pretty much invites computer science as a, as a point of Doing things that humans cannot calculate. But what are some of the manual versus automated things that you guys described as then and now, like what's changed in the lab and people's practice?

A So a lot of my PhD work was in a field called computational biology, which is in some sense a halfway house between completely generalizable machine learning approach to answering these questions and just looking at single genes. Computational biology is really a field that's designed to use computational tools aided by the biological knowledge of the scientist that's wielding those tools. So some of the things that you can do in computational biology, for example, is take the DNA data that's coming from an Illumina sequencer, for example, tremendous amounts of data. You're going to have to go through essentially prepare that data before you can do anything with it. That step is called DNA alignment, and that used to take days. Now there are tools out there that can do the alignment process in five minutes. So that's some of the things that that field has contributed to in the last 15 years. Where I think computational biology could use help from things like machine learning is making sense of what that amount of data is actually saying about how we understand disease and how we understand human health. And that's something that manually is very hard to do because let's say you can ask what is the RNA expression level across those 20,000 genes. That doesn't answer the question of which genes are relevant For determining whether somebody has a certain disease or not. It only tel…

AI assessment note: “DNA alignment, and that used to take days. Now there are tools”

page 1
Made with StarZero

Turn any episode into a week of clips.

This entire site, over 1,000 episodes transcribed, diarized, checked and made playable, runs on the StarZero media pipeline. Drop in your own episode and the podcast clipper finds the moments worth sharing, cuts them, captions them, and reframes them for every feed.