Nvidia canvas existed before text to image models but it didn't gain as much popularity with the masses.
The other part is the training data - there are masses of (text description, image) pairs whilst if you want to do something more novel you may struggle to find a big enough dataset.
You don't, but it can be helpful if you find a critic that strongly aligns with your preferences, or even strongly misaligns with your preferences. Just like a reccomendation from a friend, you can use it to consider if something is worth even giving a try.
> The researchers estimate that for every 10,000 people treated in a year, between 1.5 and 2.5 _extra_ cases will be seen.
The existing rate is about 2 per 10,000 people per year:
> Both Danish studies show that the risk of developing NAION for the individual patient receiving treatment with Ozempic is only 0.2 per thousand per year, which is fortunately significantly lower than in the American study. NAION is a relatively rare condition, and the extra risk is therefore low.
It's really frustrating because both papers clearly lays out the numbers in natural frequencies:
> During 1,915,120 person-years of observation, 218 persons developed NAION. Semaglutide
51 exposure associated with a higher incidence rate (0·228 vs 0·093 per 1000 person-years, p<0·001)
52 and independently predicted a higher risk of upcoming NAION (HR 2·19, 95% confidence interval
53 1·54-3·12), even when multiple other factors were taken into account.
> In this cohort study conducted in Denmark and Norway, use of semaglutide was associated with an increased risk of NAION; the pooled hazard ratio was 2.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 4.75) and the incidence rate difference (absolute risk increase) was +1.41 (95% CI +0.53 to +2.29) NAION events per 10,000 person-years. The finding was consistent across sensitivity and supplementary analysis.
Ah, hidden right at the end inside the "about the studies":
> Both Danish studies show that the risk of developing NAION for the individual patient receiving treatment with Ozempic is only 0.2 per thousand per year, which is fortunately significantly lower than in the American study. NAION is a relatively rare condition, and the extra risk is therefore low. The researchers estimate that for every 10,000 people treated in a year, between 1.5 and 2.5 extra cases will be seen.
Sadly it's still relative, and they still leave you the mental maths to work out the natural frequencies.
All medications increases the risks of side effects, but they are prescribed because the benifits outweigh the downsides - even if little is known about their mechanism.
> but they are prescribed because the benifits outweigh the downsides
Some are. Some are simply prescribed because the patient asks for them.
> even if little is known about their mechanism.
I wouldn't take it unless my condition was immediately life threatening and there were no other medications available. There are very few classes of treatment that fall within these parameters.
That, or they were skeptical in dangerous ways. I'm thinking of the example of Richard Feynman questioning if you should brush your teeth, which although is valid to scientifically challenge. There's other examples of "smart people", especially in their own domains openly applying their technique to other fields for the detriment of observers.
In my mind it's important to have both, as long ad the main issue is made clear and nitpicks are truly nitpicks (and thus acceptable in limited quantity to not block a change).
Otherwise you'd have a "bombshell" to refactoring, then on the 2nd review pass a handful of nitpicks that you could have addressed during the initial refactor.
reply