My impression of what's holding back improvements to CV and ML for medical images is that close to none of the research in the field will ever be put into practice. There's a huge amount of research done and then the companies actually producing the software used by technicians and doctors choose a tiny number of things to pick up, incorporate, test, get certified, and it takes years. People working in the field have admitted to me they have few to no hopes.
I work in this field - IMO, your assessment is correct insofar as the absolute need for commercialization of research done. However, we haven't gotten to the super-human performance for medical images yet. We don't even have the ImageNet-equivalent, nor do we have any open source (or just source & weight available) models that Google and other big corp claim to be so wonderful. Most of people in the field, rightly so, then dismiss anything like Med-Palm M and other PR-like papers from these groups. Why base your career (both academically and product-wise) on this?
> "we haven't gotten to the super-human performance for medical images yet."
I guess that at least in France, most people living elsewhere than large towns do not need that.
What they need (IMO) is competent radiologists in a time of medical deserts.
Because even when there is staff, this staff do not spent enough time analyzing images while being quite expensive. Their main goal is to make money quickly.
A couple of years ago I had built a product for health systems in the computer vision space - and ran into the challenge of trying to commercialize it (with no luck). Even if the product/technology is excellent, the regulatory hurdles & red tape make it insanely difficult to get this sort of stuff commercialized in a healthcare context.
Many people in the field are physicists, and they consistently state that even if the performance is better than human, they will not use ML in the field, simply due to explainability. Physicists like having very explainable analytical equations, so handing them a lot of matrices with how to compose them is not convincing.
They may still lose out in time, but not without a battle over explainability.
Also, Google is always and constantly making announcements that Bard or whatever IA tech (Music-LM, etc) is supposedly beating all the competitors, but nobody can use or see such models, only very inferiors ones, curious, right ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ?
Financial reports and news of companies and stocks (mostly US, I think), focusing on values and fundamentals. I found other similar sites to be too much about short term trends and technical analysis.
We've made Mailcoach, which you can either self-host or use our Cloud service. It allows you to write in Markdown and also has functionality to create a website like Revue had.
I use them too. Great customer service with a real and competent person on the line right away. Decided to go with them after some searching. I was getting off Google and they had an actual office and pictures of the people who worked there on their website. Some of their marketing is a bit corny but have had great service over the past few years.
support isn't that good if you ask me. when I had a problem with my account and they couldn't resolve it, it took quite some time to get my domain back under control.
This sounds about right. What I remember reading is that people pay Google Ads to serve their ads to people for around $10 CPM (cost per mille), so that is $10 per 1000 impressions.
And if Google Adsense pays you 50%, you end up with $5 RPM (revenue per mille) for your website.
I think this is similar for Youtube, except those are video ads, I remember seeing "this is how much I made from Youtube" and those were roughly $5-ish RPM and much higher for niche channels like finance etc.
Apart from the technical concerns (huge code base, lack of documentation, etc.), I'm also pretty afraid of someone (or some company) just taking away the codes and make profits or even claim that they make it, because webui codes (especially as production ready as this project) are something that's easy to copy and HARD to protect...
But if more and more people get to know this project, this concern will no longer exist, and I'll definitely open source the webui codes XD!
After all, I do want more and more people to be able to enjoy the current AI magics, for free, and forever!
I don’t know how it is viewed here, but have a look at the licensing scheme adopted by Sentry.io.
They faced a similar concern when people were selling the exact same product using a new name.
> For example, this past year, we’ve had to deal with funded businesses plagiarizing or copying our work to directly compete with Sentry. This has included taking marketing content from our website, plagiarizing our documentation and framing it as their own, or straight-up copy/pasting our product visuals. Their defense? “Well, it’s free open-source, and we can do that.” These businesses are not using Sentry to improve how they develop software; they’re lifting its code and assets to build their closed-source products to compete directly with us.
