6 ms·

I'm not putting my head under. How do we know this won't cause aneurysms? Damage eyes and ears? Getting a medical device approved takes time because of concerns

by kibibu 3mo ago

I'm not putting my head under. How do we know this won't cause aneurysms? Damage eyes and ears? Getting a medical device approved takes time because of concerns like this.

mNovak 3mo ago
We already ultrasound babies in the womb, so one would hope this has been studied.
- reverius42 3mo ago
  Before ultrasound, they used to x-ray pregnant women to see the fetus. At that time, someone might have said "one would hope this has been studied"... unfortunately that practice went on for about 60 years before being stopped in the late 1950s. Side note: kinda crazy they had medical x-rays in the 1890s. X-Ray imaging was discovered in 1985 and used clinically within 2 years. But I do agree with your point, these days, I hope we're better about studying the potential dangers of current technologies we use.
  - toasty228 3mo ago
    We also put lead in paint and gas because why the fuck not? Asbestos pretty much everywhere because it was a miracle material, etc. for decades, and we're still paying the price
  - rdl 3mo ago
    We also used to x-ray people for shoe fitting/for lulz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope
  - krick 3mo ago
    > But I do agree with your point, these days, I hope we're better about studying the potential dangers of current technologies we use. Sorry, but this is just pure "Gell-Mann amnesia effect" vibe to me. I mean, you've just brought up a perfect example yourself! What kind of mental gymnastics does it take to still hope that this time it's not like that? I don't wanna start the whole "vaccines cause autism" thing and whatnot, and surely you shouldn't avoid ultrasound just because of irrational fear of some yet undiscovered side-effects, but it's really amazing, how people tell fun stories about how common was the narrative about major war being very unlikely in "modern days" (because who would dare to do that with this kind of technology!) right before WW1, and then conclude with firmly believing that these days (after WW2) it sure won't happen, because humans are not that dumb. And my point is, that perhaps it indeed might have been a bit less likely, if people didn't believe that it is so unlikely to keep stepping on the same rake.
zythyx 3mo ago
From my understanding of the post, the waves that are created are smaller than light waves, and there's no evidence that light waves, sound waves or sub-sonic waves have any aneurysm-causing effects. (I researched more and found in the video a value) The waves are 50 nanometres, and this is basically the equivalent of having a full body ultrasound. We've been doing baby ultrasounds for decades with no ill effects, so I can't imagine this being different
- kibibu 3mo ago
  Ultrasonic wavelengths are orders of magnitude longer than light.
autoexec 3mo ago
It might not actually cause harm or strange effects to people's bodies, but I'd certainly feel better if it was tested and used by doctors in a hospital and not some "spa" since those tend to be poorly regulated and where all kinds of quackery takes place (https://www.aafp.org/afp/afp-community-blog/med-spa-industry-largely-unregulated-as-use-increases https://www.aafp.org/afp/afp-community-blog/med-spa-industry...). The safety of the device itself is a concern, but so is the trustworthiness of the output. Midjourney already has some very questionable history with medical imagery (like this totally legit image of rat testicles published in "Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology" https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/AI_generated_figure_published_in_a_Frontiers_journal.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/AI_gener...)
- ElFitz 3mo ago
  > The safety of the device itself is a concern, but so is the trustworthiness of the output. And the safety of the data as well. Am I supposed to entrust full body scans to a startup?
- Levitz 3mo ago
  >Midjourney already has some very questionable history with medical imagery (like this totally legit image of rat testicles published in "Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology" https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/AI_gener https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/AI_gener...) I don't think "someone used their tool to produce a silly result and used it" qualifies as Midjourney having questionable history at all.

by kibibu 3mo ago

I'm not putting my head under. How do we know this won't cause aneurysms? Damage eyes and ears? Getting a medical device approved takes time because of concerns like this.

mNovak 3mo ago

We already ultrasound babies in the womb, so one would hope this has been studied.

reverius42 3mo ago
Before ultrasound, they used to x-ray pregnant women to see the fetus. At that time, someone might have said "one would hope this has been studied"... unfortunately that practice went on for about 60 years before being stopped in the late 1950s. Side note: kinda crazy they had medical x-rays in the 1890s. X-Ray imaging was discovered in 1985 and used clinically within 2 years. But I do agree with your point, these days, I hope we're better about studying the potential dangers of current technologies we use.
- toasty228 3mo ago
  We also put lead in paint and gas because why the fuck not? Asbestos pretty much everywhere because it was a miracle material, etc. for decades, and we're still paying the price
- rdl 3mo ago
  We also used to x-ray people for shoe fitting/for lulz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope
- krick 3mo ago
  > But I do agree with your point, these days, I hope we're better about studying the potential dangers of current technologies we use. Sorry, but this is just pure "Gell-Mann amnesia effect" vibe to me. I mean, you've just brought up a perfect example yourself! What kind of mental gymnastics does it take to still hope that this time it's not like that? I don't wanna start the whole "vaccines cause autism" thing and whatnot, and surely you shouldn't avoid ultrasound just because of irrational fear of some yet undiscovered side-effects, but it's really amazing, how people tell fun stories about how common was the narrative about major war being very unlikely in "modern days" (because who would dare to do that with this kind of technology!) right before WW1, and then conclude with firmly believing that these days (after WW2) it sure won't happen, because humans are not that dumb. And my point is, that perhaps it indeed might have been a bit less likely, if people didn't believe that it is so unlikely to keep stepping on the same rake.

zythyx 3mo ago

From my understanding of the post, the waves that are created are smaller than light waves, and there's no evidence that light waves, sound waves or sub-sonic waves have any aneurysm-causing effects. (I researched more and found in the video a value) The waves are 50 nanometres, and this is basically the equivalent of having a full body ultrasound. We've been doing baby ultrasounds for decades with no ill effects, so I can't imagine this being different

kibibu 3mo ago
Ultrasonic wavelengths are orders of magnitude longer than light.

autoexec 3mo ago

It might not actually cause harm or strange effects to people's bodies, but I'd certainly feel better if it was tested and used by doctors in a hospital and not some "spa" since those tend to be poorly regulated and where all kinds of quackery takes place (https://www.aafp.org/afp/afp-community-blog/med-spa-industry-largely-unregulated-as-use-increases https://www.aafp.org/afp/afp-community-blog/med-spa-industry...). The safety of the device itself is a concern, but so is the trustworthiness of the output. Midjourney already has some very questionable history with medical imagery (like this totally legit image of rat testicles published in "Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology" https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/AI_generated_figure_published_in_a_Frontiers_journal.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/AI_gener...)

ElFitz 3mo ago
> The safety of the device itself is a concern, but so is the trustworthiness of the output. And the safety of the data as well. Am I supposed to entrust full body scans to a startup?
Levitz 3mo ago
>Midjourney already has some very questionable history with medical imagery (like this totally legit image of rat testicles published in "Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology" https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/AI_gener https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/AI_gener...) I don't think "someone used their tool to produce a silly result and used it" qualifies as Midjourney having questionable history at all.