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 →

Allon Bloch 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
1redirected or not addressed
Redirected raw tape D 3 · C 4 · P 4 · Cm 3 3.55

Q and then we'll open up to people, just, uh, a handful of questions. Um, so machine learning is great at sifting through massive amounts of information, but it's not always great at being, uh, reliable, right? It works for most of the cases, but not all of the cases. Uh, how do you think about responsibility, I guess, in terms of not making the right recommendation or the right analysis?

A So I think that's, ah, that's a crucial, ah, element of what we're doing. So bear in mind, at stage one, and the app that we have outside replaces WebMD. So I look at it and say, wow, if people, sixty million Americans every month are willing to use something that doesn't work, well, if they use something that works pretty good, you know, it's so much better. And the reality in medicine, There's no absolute, ah, solutions. You don't know. Ah, you ask doctors. If you go and speak to ER physicians that have seen enough cases over the years, they'll always say horrible things happen. So there's no a hundred percent accuracy. But bear in mind, when you go to a doctor next to the Harvard or Stanford medical degree, it doesn't say 92% accuracy for the last 5000 people. They don't measure accuracy. They don't even know how to measure it because they don't have a closed loop of data. So I think you need to build these things right. If we sit here and say, okay, somebody might die and people will die. And therefore we shouldn't be helpful to people. We're just doing ourselves a disservice around heart attack, stroke, diabetes, acute, uh, all these different things. I don't think medicine at the primary care certainly hasn't changed since our parents were kids.

AI assessment note: “If we sit here and say, okay, somebody might die and people will die.”

page 1
Made with StarZero

Turn any episode into a week of clips.

This entire site, over 400 conversations 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.