guhwhut

(If this post is sarcastic, it's unclear. Particularly your statement about being surprised.)

It has been for 30-40 years, it's just crossed some additional thresholds for visibility.

If you aren't looking at George W and Obama as building the road to this point, I don't think you are being critical enough in your analysis. Heck, Bill Clinton was out there being a governor pushing his state to mine blood from prison inmates to sell to international buyers -- blood that was full of hepatitis and hiv.

We need to step away from the "my team your team" mindset with us politics. Both the dominant teams are protecting wealthy interests and willing to do fraud to succeed.

Cancer progresses differently depending on ethnicity and sex. As does treatment and likelihood of receiving treatment at early stages.

Black women experience worse outcomes and are diagnosed with more severe forms of breast cancer than white women.

Cancer is not just one disease. Its progression will vary depending on type. If the AI is trained on only some strains of cancer, eg those traditionally found in white women in early detection scenarios, it might not generalize to other cancer types.

So yes, to your genuine question, medical imaging of cancer can vary depending on ethnicity because different cancers can vary between genetic backgrounds. Ideally there would be sufficient training data across the populations, but there isn't because of historical race bias. (Among other reasons.)

They explicitly mention this in the article.

As a forest land owner, trees absolutely need planting. Then they need to be protected from humans and deer and invasive species and disease.

Many trees fail to grow. Most people would be astounded at how many trees don't make it.

They've used those, this is a blog post for humans who care more about the intent from the ceo rather than the specific legal frameworks.