This is an interesting problem to tackle. It's not clear from the github readme what the output of this looks like, specifically what does it return to the LLM?
Does it look clearer from there? (can update the docs as well if it is not clear, but will definitely add the section 'what does it return to agent', need just to think a bit about it).
For the AMG GT4 there will be 3 motors: two at the rear, and one at the front.
My interpretation (and my German's pretty lousy) is that each motor is combined with a gear system in a single package, and they're calling the overall package (motor plus gears) a High Performance Electric Drive Unit (HP.EDU).
The two rear motors will probably be independent, so no need for a mechanical rear diff (it'll be electronically controlled).
There's no mention of a front diff, so it's unknown whether that's built into the front HP.EDU or is a separate mechanical diff).
Kind of orthogonal. Traditional AWD and part-time 4WD systems are solutions to get power from a single motor to both the front and rear of a vehicle. AWD has a center differential to account for differences in front and rear driveshaft speeds when driving on high-traction surfaces. 4WD just locks the front and rear driveshaft rotation together, which is a simple and robust solution that only works on loose surfaces.
With separate front and rear electric motors, there's no center differential to worry about, and a sufficiently sophisticated motor control system can make it behave well on and off road.
This is probably the most succinct explanation I've ever read of the differences and the advantages of one over the other. I've been trying to understand this from different sources for years now.
I'm not sure that the traditional notion of traction control applies, given that there are three independent suppliers of power, so you don't necessarily need the mechanics of diffs and computer-controlled brakes to provide maximum traction.
What would it mean to "turn off" traction control in a car with independent motors per wheel? (OK this is a 3-motor/4-wheel scenario, but hypothetically…)
With software control and independent motors, we're likely to see increases in low-traction capability (for the right price-point and probably aimed at particular buyers)
To build on what others have said. Multiple motors per axle allow you to get rid of the diff, and you get torque vectoring basically for free.
Then there's braking. More driven wheels means more braking energy that can be recouped via regen. In traditionally rwd cars you lose out here because braking energy tends to be directed forward.
Also there's packaging. One large motor might impinge on the cabin.
Also you get benefits wrt mass production.
A smaller motor is easier to handle. Potentially could avoid the need for high voltage cables. Which eases repair.
> it's not important for a CEO to be good with software engineering
If you are the CEO of a company, you should have expertise in whatever your company does, and If your company is primarily a software company, then you should have expertise in software engineering. You cannot effectively manage something that you don't understand.
> "An AI and a pair of human doctors were each given the same standard electronic health record to read"
This is handicapping the human doctors abilities. There is a lot more information a human doctor can gather even with a brief observation of the patient.
> But it is not curtains for emergency doctors yet, the researchers said. The study only tested humans against AIs looking at patient data that can be communicated via text. The AI’s reading of signals, such as the patient’s level of distress and their visual appearance, were not tested. That means the AI was performing more like a clinician producing a second opinion based on paperwork.
> That means the AI was performing more like a clinician producing a second opinion based on paperwork.
That actually seems like a good application – automatically get a quick AI second opinion for everything; if it's dissenting the first/human medic can re-review, or comment why it's slop, or get a third/second-human opinion.
(I'm assuming most cases would be You're absolutely right, that's an astute diagnosis.)
Agreed. I think the best use of this sort of tech is to use both to their strengths. Use AI to go over the record and suggest diagnoses which you have the doctor review after observing the patient.
The other thing is that common issues are common. I have to wonder how much that ultimately biases both the doctor and the LLM. If you diagnose someone that comes in with a runny nose and cough as having the flu you will likely be right most of the time.
Chat seems like a really bad way to get patient information. You'll miss out on various cues doctors will use to diagnose you. People can get ashamed of their symptoms and may try to hide them.
You think that they have “days leading up to consultation”? Please don’t be so disingenuous; I’m sure you know exactly what the person you’re replying to meant.
My doctor makes me wait for weeks, then googles my symptoms in front of me, asks me if I checked on the internet first before I came and then gives me the first google result as an answer, as well as suggests me to wait longer. He does this several times.
When I got tired of this I just lied to the emergency line and was admitted to hospital based on my lie, and they discovered a brain tumor which explained the other stuff.
Bonus, health networks now push doctors to use AI transcription software for the EHR entries. Doctors and nurses like it because they don't have to type it up. But it is a complete shitshow on whether the records are reviewed for transcription errors which happen quite often
Now feed a flawed transcripted into an AI diagnosis system and bam-o. The AI will treat it as gospel, while the doctor may go wait what.
This is the real question. If they are serious about not doing something like this again, they NEED to look at what process failed and let something like this get proposed, designed, implemented and pushed to production. Usually things get reviewed at each stage. Did the people who pushed back on this get steam rolled? If no one pushed back, that's an even serious culture question and the entire org would need training.
A serious "we won't do it again", needs to be accompanied by a COE on this for identifying what went wrong, and identifying what guardrails can be put in place and then actually implementing them.
That's a tough one. In the big meeting? In the small meeting? "Officially" push back? Encouraged to make the push back unofficial? Etc. Even just internally, it can be hard to quantify. From internal > external, more so.
The number of times I’ve had to defend someone else’s customers let alone my own is exhausting.
And that dynamic is only allowed within close circles.
I’ve found once “the decision” is made, the bigger the subsequent meeting, protests are often swept under the rug.
On most occasions the worst part is that folks intentionally withhold information to get their way. And thats real hard to compete against without making an ass out of yourself, or losing the trust of others.
It seems like this was implemented as a way to insert tips, and then abused to insert ads, so the developers involved might not have been aware of that part until later?
Owning a decision means you have something at stake if things go wrong. What would happen to Jack if this decision turns out to be wrong? Any consequences?
