In a recent letter to clients, investment guru Ken Fisher talked about his portfolio’s positions with respect to the “AI industry,” and in the middle of is this (admittedly very skeptical take on the “AI boom”) he praises his friend’s “AI-supported insulin pump which constantly regulates and adjusts the dose automatically, eliminating the dozens of needle sticks and injections she had to do every day before this.”
Intrigued and a little annoyed by this bright spot in an otherwise dour assessment of AI’s potential, I went and looked up what’s actually running on the Pearl “artificial pancreas.”
It’s runnning Bayesian analysis on top of the Bergmann Minimal Model of Glucose Regulation, with small randomizations in the perturbation model to update the Pearl’s model for the individual using it.
The Bergmann model is 45 years old. Bayes’ algorithm is 260 years old. What the Pearl does is monitor your glucose levels precisely and, over the course of the day, make predictions about when you’ll need more insulin, and then monitor how your glucose levels respond to its scheduling, updating the schedule in order to smooth out the responses and help the diabetic patient manage better.
There’s a lot that goes into the Pearl monitor. Insulinic medications that are stable at room temperature for long periods are a modern technological miracle. Batteries that last for hours or even days are a modern technological miracle. Glucose sensors that tiny are a modern technological miracle. Microprocessors that can handle the load are a modern technological miracle. Even the very low energy “body area networking” so that the glucose monitor and the insulin injector can work in tandem is a modern technological miracle. Miniaturizing this into a package you can wear on your belt is a modern miracle. Software provers like Idris and Agda that can certify the system will behave exactly as specified are a modern miracle.
But you can’t sell any of that. Either they’re black magic to those unfamiliar with them (software provers) or they’re just part of what we’ve come to expect from technology (the miniaturization). They feel like a natural extension of whatever Steve Jobs wrought when he introduced the iPhone in 2007.
But “AI” is a buzzword. It’s hot, it’s sexy, it’s now. One of the papers my investment advisor sent me when I questioned that little bit has this to say:
Do you see a trend here? Every mention of AI emphasizes how “advanced,” “sophisticated,” or “complicated” it is, but there is not one discussion of the algorithm itself. Not a single mention of what they’re using.
So I tracked it down. It’s Bayesian analysis all the way down!
A 260 year old algorithm is not exactly cutting edge. It is the opposite of cutting edge. I don’t want to demean the makers of these things, they’re brilliant and wonderful and I want every diabetes patient who needs one to have one. But most of the miracles inside them are hardware miracles or miracles in modern software development. The software itself is not AI. It is standard modelling software you could have run on Lotus 1-2-3 on your IBM PC in 1983 (albeit much more slowly than what the Pearl uses for a brain today).
Ken Fisher is a smart guy, and even with the outrageous fees our portfolio is doing better than an equivalent Vanguard play would have done (and we’re Vanguard Admiral tier!). So it was disappointing for someone to see even this little bit of blather about “AI” as a bright spot in an otherwise very sketchy industry. It’s not.
It’s just math.
Intrigued and a little annoyed by this bright spot in an otherwise dour assessment of AI’s potential, I went and looked up what’s actually running on the Pearl “artificial pancreas.”
It’s runnning Bayesian analysis on top of the Bergmann Minimal Model of Glucose Regulation, with small randomizations in the perturbation model to update the Pearl’s model for the individual using it.
The Bergmann model is 45 years old. Bayes’ algorithm is 260 years old. What the Pearl does is monitor your glucose levels precisely and, over the course of the day, make predictions about when you’ll need more insulin, and then monitor how your glucose levels respond to its scheduling, updating the schedule in order to smooth out the responses and help the diabetic patient manage better.
There’s a lot that goes into the Pearl monitor. Insulinic medications that are stable at room temperature for long periods are a modern technological miracle. Batteries that last for hours or even days are a modern technological miracle. Glucose sensors that tiny are a modern technological miracle. Microprocessors that can handle the load are a modern technological miracle. Even the very low energy “body area networking” so that the glucose monitor and the insulin injector can work in tandem is a modern technological miracle. Miniaturizing this into a package you can wear on your belt is a modern miracle. Software provers like Idris and Agda that can certify the system will behave exactly as specified are a modern miracle.
But you can’t sell any of that. Either they’re black magic to those unfamiliar with them (software provers) or they’re just part of what we’ve come to expect from technology (the miniaturization). They feel like a natural extension of whatever Steve Jobs wrought when he introduced the iPhone in 2007.
But “AI” is a buzzword. It’s hot, it’s sexy, it’s now. One of the papers my investment advisor sent me when I questioned that little bit has this to say:
… integrates real-time glucose monitoring with advanced artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms and closed-loop insulin delivery. … Through the integration of AI algorithms, not only can glucose levels be continuously monitored … continuous glucose monitoring technology with sophisticated AI algorithms … Using advanced algorithms and machine learning … the integration of complicated algorithms and cutting-edge machine learning techniques … Through the utilization of advanced algorithms … analyzing the incoming glucose data through the integration of complicated algorithms and cutting-edge machine learning techniques … to implement sophisticated algorithms that intelligently calculate the precise insulin dosage …
Do you see a trend here? Every mention of AI emphasizes how “advanced,” “sophisticated,” or “complicated” it is, but there is not one discussion of the algorithm itself. Not a single mention of what they’re using.
So I tracked it down. It’s Bayesian analysis all the way down!
A 260 year old algorithm is not exactly cutting edge. It is the opposite of cutting edge. I don’t want to demean the makers of these things, they’re brilliant and wonderful and I want every diabetes patient who needs one to have one. But most of the miracles inside them are hardware miracles or miracles in modern software development. The software itself is not AI. It is standard modelling software you could have run on Lotus 1-2-3 on your IBM PC in 1983 (albeit much more slowly than what the Pearl uses for a brain today).
Ken Fisher is a smart guy, and even with the outrageous fees our portfolio is doing better than an equivalent Vanguard play would have done (and we’re Vanguard Admiral tier!). So it was disappointing for someone to see even this little bit of blather about “AI” as a bright spot in an otherwise very sketchy industry. It’s not.
It’s just math.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}