正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Palantir’s software allowed a 2000% increase in patient discharge speed and paired it with a 95% discharge prediction accuracy. One might call it a “Palantir unit of time”. At AIPCon 7, President and Chief Operating Officer of Nebraska Medicine Dr. Michael Ash shows how Palantir’s software has cut costs...

71,264 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

10 条评论

Juniper 的头像
Juniper1 年前

@ScorpionCheck A 2000% increase in speed? What does that even mean

Paulina Plazas 的头像
Paulina Plazas1 年前

Your CEO wants to use our data to monitor our behavior and kill us all 😂💀 no thanks.

Rudy Palantard 的头像
Rudy Palantard1 年前

@chadwahl Palantir is the cure for Healthcare Constipation

ksminnovation 的头像
ksminnovation1 年前

AI is transforming healthcare! A KSM-led study shows AI can detect Celiac disease 4 years earlier @TalPatalon @MedPredict

NextGenSage 的头像
NextGenSage1 年前

Efficiency isn’t just about doing things faster — it’s about doing them smarter. A 2000% increase in discharge speed with 95% predictive accuracy isn’t just a technical win, it’s a shift in how we think about time and care in medicine. Palantir’s work with Nebraska Medicine suggests that when software truly integrates with human systems, the results feel less like optimization and more like transformation. #HealthTech #AI #Palantir #AIPCon7 #DataDrivenCare #HealthcareInnovation #FutureOfMedicine #HospitalEfficiency #PatientCare

Black Out 的头像
Black Out1 年前

In exchange for gaining time, we are losing the time to think for ourselves.😟

GenevaInvestor 的头像
GenevaInvestor1 年前

Nice stuff. Scale this bad boy to $ 1 Trillion.

Ronald Martin 的头像
Ronald Martin1 年前

How many citizens did palantir steal health records from? How many are being spied on by Palantir software. That's all PLTR is , a quasi SPY OPERATION

The Right Handed Neutrino 的头像
The Right Handed Neutrino1 年前

These are units of measure in terms of Business, but was there an increase in Health or Relationship building between the Patient and the provider?

Sharon Almaguer 的头像
Sharon Almaguer1 年前

You are and have always been an evil company.

相关视频

“You didn’t read it”.. Burry’s favorite response to any criticism of his $PLTR article Okay, how about we address a direct paragraph from you about Palantir’s ontology: “What Palantir calls its ontology is essentially this data retrieval for use through a common platform. But what if, as the paper points out, LLMs can still confabulate around a piece of data, misinterpret it, ignore it, etc.? In that case, Palantir's ontology cannot overcome the core hallucination problem in the underlying LLMs AIP uses. Hallucinations and overconfidence are fatal to tasks such as legal reasoning, scientific reasoning, medical decision support, military targeting, and other truly mission critical tasks requiring 100% precision and confidence grounded in real data. The paper notes no current mitigation - including the RAG architecture central to AlP - can reliably solve this problem.” What if this. What if that. If my aunt had a dick, she’d be my uncle. We can do “what if” for eternity. How about we look at the impact? - You question the validity of Palantir’s software helping find Bin Laden. Okay, how about the confirmation here of Palantir’s software being used during the Venezuela operation? Thoughts? They could’ve swapped Claude for Grok. Doesn’t matter. They could not have swapped Palantir’s software for something else, though. The LLMs that you point out Palantir does not have, are a commodity. - How about this other example of the 18th Airborne Corps' artillery brigade reducing its targeting process from 724 minutes to 20 minutes with Palantir’s Maven Smart System? Is the ontology hallucinating there? - How about the Navy’s ShipOS, built on Palantir, decreasing schedule planning from 160 hours to 10 minutes? - What about the director of NATO’s Task Force Maven citing how critical the ontology here? “To capitalize on Al applications, an ontology and lineage for data is needed. Al applications don't understand context or meaning; they understand structure. A data ontology provides the machine With a common language and framework for defining concepts, their attributes and their relationships (for example, classifying a 'jet' as an 'air platform' with specific 'weapon systems'). Without this shared structure, an Al model trained on one system's terminology wouldn't be able to integrate data from another. MSS establishes this common schema across NATO systems, unlocking the possibility of interoperable Al applications. This interoperability and trust are paramount in a warfighting context.”: Which is more credible? Your Stanford paper, or a director at NATO who actually uses the software? You wrote 10,000 words, so it’s impossible to dissect the whole thing. If one tries to do so, you will just say they didn’t read it. So let’s take a look at this ontology paragraph specifically. Do you have any proof of the ontology failing? Or just this “what if” from a Stanford paper? There’s infinite examples of it being transformational.. that’s for sure.

Jack Prescott

24,154 次观看 • 5 个月前