• BOUNCING FROM RUBBER DUCKIES AND FLYING SHEEP TO CLONES FOR THE BOYS SEASON 4

    By TREVOR HOGG
    Images courtesy of Prime Video.

    For those seeking an alternative to the MCU, Prime Video has two offerings of the live-action and animated variety that take the superhero genre into R-rated territory where the hands of the god-like figures get dirty, bloodied and severed. “The Boys is about the intersection of celebrity and politics using superheroes,” states Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor on The Boys. “Sometimes I see the news and I don’t even know we can write to catch up to it! But we try. Invincible is an intense look at an alternate DC Universe that has more grit to the superhero side of it all. On one hand, I was jealous watching Season 1 of Invincible because in animation you can do things that you can’t do in real life on a budget.” Season 4 does not tone down the blood, gore and body count. Fleet notes, “The writers almost have this dialogue with us. Sometimes, they’ll write in the script, ‘And Fleet will come up with a cool visual effect for how to kill this person.’ Or, ‘Chhiu, our fight coordinator, will make an awesome fight.’ It is a frequent topic of conversation. We’re constantly trying to be inventive and create new ways to kill people!”

    When Splintersplits in two, the cloning effect was inspired by cellular mitosis.

    “The writers almost have this dialogue with us. Sometimes, they’ll write in the script, ‘And Fleet will come up with a cool visual effect for how to kill this person.’ Or, ‘Chhiu, our fight coordinator, will make an awesome fight.’ It is a frequent topic of conversation. We’re constantly trying to be inventive and create new ways to kill people!”
    —Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor

    A total of 1,600 visual effects shots were created for the eight episodes by ILM, Pixomondo, MPC Toronto, Spin VFX, DNEG, Untold Studios, Luma Pictures and Rocket Science VFX. Previs was a critical part of the process. “We have John Griffith, who owns a small company called CNCPT out of Texas, and he does wonderful Unreal Engine level previs,” Fleet remarks. “On set, we have a cartoon of what is going to be done, and you’ll be amazed, specifically for action and heavy visual effects stuff, how close those shots are to the previs when we finish.” Founding Director of Federal Bureau of Superhuman Affairs, Victoria Neuman, literally gets ripped in half by two tendrils coming out of Compound V-enhanced Billy Butcher, the leader of superhero resistance group The Boys. “The word that we like to use on this show is ‘grounded,’ and I like to say ‘grounded’ with an asterisk in this day and age because we’re grounded until we get to killing people in the craziest ways. In this case, having someone floating in the air and being ripped in half by two tendrils was all CG.”

    Multiple plates were shot to enable Simon Pegg to phase through the actor laying in a hospital bed.

    Testing can get rather elaborate. “For that end scene with Butcher’s tendrils, the room was two stories, and we were able to put the camera up high along with a bunch of blood cannons,” Fleet recalls. “When the body rips in half and explodes, there is a practical component. We rained down a bunch of real blood and guts right in front of Huey. It’s a known joke that we like to douse Jack Quaid with blood as much as possible! In this case, the special effects team led by Hudson Kenny needed to test it the day before, and I said, “I’ll be the guinea pig for the test.’ They covered the whole place with plastic like it was a Dexter kill room because you don’t want to destroy the set. I’m standing there in a white hazmat suit with goggles on, covered from head to toe in plastic and waiting as they’re tweaking all of these things. It sounds like World War II going on. They’re on walkie talkies to each other, and then all of a sudden, it’s ‘Five, four, three, two, one…’  And I get exploded with blood. I wanted to see what it was like, and it’s intense.”

    “On set, we have a cartoon of what is going to be done, and you’ll be amazed, specifically for action and heavy visual effects stuff, how close those shots are to the previs when we finish.”
    —Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor

    The Deep has a love affair with an octopus called Ambrosius, voiced by Tilda Swinton. “It’s implied bestiality!” Fleet laughs. “I would call it more of a romance. What was fun from my perspective is that I knew what the look was going to be, so then it’s about putting in the details and the animation. One of the instincts that you always have when you’re making a sea creature that talks to a humanyou tend to want to give it human gestures and eyebrows. Erik Kripkesaid, ‘No. We have to find things that an octopus could do that conveys the same emotion.’ That’s when ideas came in, such as putting a little The Deep toy inside the water tank. When Ambrosius is trying to have an intimate moment or connect with him, she can wrap a tentacle around that. My favorite experience doing Ambrosius was when The Deep is reading poetry to her on a bed. CG creatures touching humans is one of the more complicated things to do and make look real. Ambrosius’ tentacles reach for his arm, and it becomes an intimate moment. More than touching the skin, displacing the bedsheet as Ambrosius moved ended up becoming a lot of CG, and we had to go back and forth a few times to get that looking right; that turned out to be tricky.”

    A building is replaced by a massive crowd attending a rally being held by Homelander.

    In a twisted form of sexual foreplay, Sister Sage has The Deep perform a transorbital lobotomy on her. “Thank you, Amazon for selling lobotomy tools as novelty items!” Fleet chuckles. “We filmed it with a lobotomy tool on set. There is a lot of safety involved in doing something like that. Obviously, you don’t want to put any performer in any situation where they come close to putting anything real near their eye. We created this half lobotomy tool and did this complicated split screen with the lobotomy tool on a teeter totter. The Deep wasin one shot and Sister Sage reacted in the other shot. To marry the two ended up being a lot of CG work. Then there are these close-ups which are full CG. I always keep a dummy head that is painted gray that I use all of the time for reference. In macrophotography I filmed this lobotomy tool going right into the eye area. I did that because the tool is chrome, so it’s reflective and has ridges. It has an interesting reflective property. I was able to see how and what part of the human eye reflects onto the tool. A lot of that shot became about realistic reflections and lighting on the tool. Then heavy CG for displacing the eye and pushing the lobotomy tool into it. That was one of the more complicated sequences that we had to achieve.”

    In order to create an intimate moment between Ambrosius and The Deep, a toy version of the superhero was placed inside of the water tank that she could wrap a tentacle around.

    “The word that we like to use on this show is ‘grounded,’ and I like to say ‘grounded’ with an asterisk in this day and age because we’re grounded until we get to killing people in the craziest ways. In this case, having someone floating in the air and being ripped in half by two tendrils was all CG.”
    —Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor

    Sheep and chickens embark on a violent rampage courtesy of Compound V with the latter piercing the chest of a bodyguard belonging to Victoria Neuman. “Weirdly, that was one of our more traditional shots,’ Fleet states. “What is fun about that one is I asked for real chickens as reference. The chicken flying through his chest is real. It’s our chicken wrangler in green suit gently tossing a chicken. We blended two real plates together with some CG in the middle.” A connection was made with a sci-fi classic. “The sheep kill this bull, and we shot it is in this narrow corridor of fencing. When they run, I always equated it as the Trench Run in Star Wars and looked at the sheep as TIE fighters or X-wings coming at them.” The scene was one of the scarier moments for the visual effects team. Fleet explains, “When I read the script, I thought this could be the moment where we jump the shark. For the shots where the sheep are still and scream to the camera, Untold Studios did a bunch of R&D and came up with baboon teeth. I tried to keep anything real as much as possible, but, obviously, when sheep are flying, they have to be CG. I call it the Battlestar Galactica theory, where I like to shake the camera, overshoot shots and make it sloppy when they’re in the air so you can add motion blur. Comedy also helps sell visual effects.”

    The sheep injected with Compound V develop the ability to fly and were shot in an imperfect manner to help ground the scenes.

    Once injected with Compound V, Hugh Campbell Sr.develops the ability to phase through objects, including human beings. “We called it the Bro-nut because his name in the script is Wall Street Bro,” Fleet notes. “That was a complicated motion control shot, repeating the move over and over again. We had to shoot multiple plates of Simon Pegg and the guy in the bed. Special effects and prosthetics created a dummy guy with a hole in his chest with practical blood dripping down. It was meshing it together and getting the timing right in post. On top of that, there was the CG blood immediately around Simon Pegg.” The phasing effect had to avoid appearing as a dissolve. “I had this idea of doing high-frequency vibration on the X axis loosely based on how The Flash vibrates through walls. You want everything to have a loose motivation that then helps trigger the visuals. We tried not to overcomplicate that because, ultimately, you want something like that to be quick. If you spend too much time on phasing, it can look cheesy. In our case, it was a lot of false walls. Simon Pegg is running into a greenscreen hole which we plug in with a wall or coming out of one. I went off the actor’s action, and we added a light opacity mix with some X-axis shake.”

    Providing a different twist to the fights was the replacement of spurting blood with photoreal rubber duckies during a drug-induced hallucination.

    Homelanderbreaks a mirror which emphasizes his multiple personality disorder. “The original plan was that special effects was going to pre-break a mirror, and we were going to shoot Anthony Starr moving his head doing all of the performances in the different parts of the mirror,” Fleet reveals. “This was all based on a photo that my ex-brother-in-law sent me. He was walking down a street in Glendale, California, came across a broken mirror that someone had thrown out, and took a photo of himself where he had five heads in the mirror. We get there on the day, and I’m realizing that this is really complicated. Anthony has to do these five different performances, and we have to deal with infinite mirrors. At the last minute, I said, ‘We have to do this on a clean mirror.’ We did it on a clear mirror and gave Anthony different eyelines. The mirror break was all done in post, and we were able to cheat his head slightly and art-direct where the break crosses his chin. Editorial was able to do split screens for the timing of the dialogue.”

    “For the shots where the sheep are still and scream to the camera, Untold Studios did a bunch of R&D and came up with baboon teeth. I tried to keep anything real as much as possible, but, obviously, when sheep are flying, they have to be CG. I call it the Battlestar Galactica theory, where I like to shake the camera, overshoot shots and make it sloppy when they’re in the air so you can add motion blur. Comedy also helps sell visual effects.”
    —Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor

    Initially, the plan was to use a practical mirror, but creating a digital version proved to be the more effective solution.

    A different spin on the bloodbath occurs during a fight when a drugged Frenchiehallucinates as Kimiko Miyashirogoes on a killing spree. “We went back and forth with a lot of different concepts for what this hallucination would be,” Fleet remarks. “When we filmed it, we landed on Frenchie having a synesthesia moment where he’s seeing a lot of abstract colors flying in the air. We started getting into that in post and it wasn’t working. We went back to the rubber duckies, which goes back to the story of him in the bathtub. What’s in the bathtub? Rubber duckies, bubbles and water. There was a lot of physics and logic required to figure out how these rubber duckies could float out of someone’s neck. We decided on bubbles when Kimiko hits people’s heads. At one point, we had water when she got shot, but it wasn’t working, so we killed it. We probably did about 100 different versions. We got really detailed with our rubber duckie modeling because we didn’t want it to look cartoony. That took a long time.”

    Ambrosius, voiced by Tilda Swinton, gets a lot more screentime in Season 4.

    When Splintersplits in two was achieved heavily in CG. “Erik threw out the words ‘cellular mitosis’ early on as something he wanted to use,” Fleet states. “We shot Rob Benedict on a greenscreen doing all of the different performances for the clones that pop out. It was a crazy amount of CG work with Houdini and particle and skin effects. We previs’d the sequence so we had specific actions. One clone comes out to the right and the other pulls backwards.” What tends to go unnoticed by many is Splinter’s clones setting up for a press conference being held by Firecracker. “It’s funny how no one brings up the 22-hour motion control shot that we had to do with Splinter on the stage, which was the most complicated shot!” Fleet observes. “We have this sweeping long shot that brings you into the room and follows Splinter as he carries a container to the stage and hands it off to a clone, and then you reveal five more of them interweaving each other and interacting with all of these objects. It’s like a minute-long dance. First off, you have to choreograph it. We previs’d it, but then you need to get people to do it. We hired dancers and put different colored armbands on them. The camera is like another performer, and a metronome is going, which enables you to find a pace. That took about eight hours of rehearsal. Then Rob has to watch each one of their performances and mimic it to the beat. When he is handing off a box of cables, it’s to a double who is going to have to be erased and be him on the other side. They have to be almost perfect in their timing and lineup in order to take it over in visual effects and make it work.”
    #bouncing #rubber #duckies #flying #sheep
    BOUNCING FROM RUBBER DUCKIES AND FLYING SHEEP TO CLONES FOR THE BOYS SEASON 4
    By TREVOR HOGG Images courtesy of Prime Video. For those seeking an alternative to the MCU, Prime Video has two offerings of the live-action and animated variety that take the superhero genre into R-rated territory where the hands of the god-like figures get dirty, bloodied and severed. “The Boys is about the intersection of celebrity and politics using superheroes,” states Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor on The Boys. “Sometimes I see the news and I don’t even know we can write to catch up to it! But we try. Invincible is an intense look at an alternate DC Universe that has more grit to the superhero side of it all. On one hand, I was jealous watching Season 1 of Invincible because in animation you can do things that you can’t do in real life on a budget.” Season 4 does not tone down the blood, gore and body count. Fleet notes, “The writers almost have this dialogue with us. Sometimes, they’ll write in the script, ‘And Fleet will come up with a cool visual effect for how to kill this person.’ Or, ‘Chhiu, our fight coordinator, will make an awesome fight.’ It is a frequent topic of conversation. We’re constantly trying to be inventive and create new ways to kill people!” When Splintersplits in two, the cloning effect was inspired by cellular mitosis. “The writers almost have this dialogue with us. Sometimes, they’ll write in the script, ‘And Fleet will come up with a cool visual effect for how to kill this person.’ Or, ‘Chhiu, our fight coordinator, will make an awesome fight.’ It is a frequent topic of conversation. We’re constantly trying to be inventive and create new ways to kill people!” —Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor A total of 1,600 visual effects shots were created for the eight episodes by ILM, Pixomondo, MPC Toronto, Spin VFX, DNEG, Untold Studios, Luma Pictures and Rocket Science VFX. Previs was a critical part of the process. “We have John Griffith, who owns a small company called CNCPT out of Texas, and he does wonderful Unreal Engine level previs,” Fleet remarks. “On set, we have a cartoon of what is going to be done, and you’ll be amazed, specifically for action and heavy visual effects stuff, how close those shots are to the previs when we finish.” Founding Director of Federal Bureau of Superhuman Affairs, Victoria Neuman, literally gets ripped in half by two tendrils coming out of Compound V-enhanced Billy Butcher, the leader of superhero resistance group The Boys. “The word that we like to use on this show is ‘grounded,’ and I like to say ‘grounded’ with an asterisk in this day and age because we’re grounded until we get to killing people in the craziest ways. In this case, having someone floating in the air and being ripped in half by two tendrils was all CG.” Multiple plates were shot to enable Simon Pegg to phase through the actor laying in a hospital bed. Testing can get rather elaborate. “For that end scene with Butcher’s tendrils, the room was two stories, and we were able to put the camera up high along with a bunch of blood cannons,” Fleet recalls. “When the body rips in half and explodes, there is a practical component. We rained down a bunch of real blood and guts right in front of Huey. It’s a known joke that we like to douse Jack Quaid with blood as much as possible! In this case, the special effects team led by Hudson Kenny needed to test it the day before, and I said, “I’ll be the guinea pig for the test.’ They covered the whole place with plastic like it was a Dexter kill room because you don’t want to destroy the set. I’m standing there in a white hazmat suit with goggles on, covered from head to toe in plastic and waiting as they’re tweaking all of these things. It sounds like World War II going on. They’re on walkie talkies to each other, and then all of a sudden, it’s ‘Five, four, three, two, one…’  And I get exploded with blood. I wanted to see what it was like, and it’s intense.” “On set, we have a cartoon of what is going to be done, and you’ll be amazed, specifically for action and heavy visual effects stuff, how close those shots are to the previs when we finish.” —Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor The Deep has a love affair with an octopus called Ambrosius, voiced by Tilda Swinton. “It’s implied bestiality!” Fleet laughs. “I would call it more of a romance. What was fun from my perspective is that I knew what the look was going to be, so then it’s about putting in the details and the animation. One of the instincts that you always have when you’re making a sea creature that talks to a humanyou tend to want to give it human gestures and eyebrows. Erik Kripkesaid, ‘No. We have to find things that an octopus could do that conveys the same emotion.’ That’s when ideas came in, such as putting a little The Deep toy inside the water tank. When Ambrosius is trying to have an intimate moment or connect with him, she can wrap a tentacle around that. My favorite experience doing Ambrosius was when The Deep is reading poetry to her on a bed. CG creatures touching humans is one of the more complicated things to do and make look real. Ambrosius’ tentacles reach for his arm, and it becomes an intimate moment. More than touching the skin, displacing the bedsheet as Ambrosius moved ended up becoming a lot of CG, and we had to go back and forth a few times to get that looking right; that turned out to be tricky.” A building is replaced by a massive crowd attending a rally being held by Homelander. In a twisted form of sexual foreplay, Sister Sage has The Deep perform a transorbital lobotomy on her. “Thank you, Amazon for selling lobotomy tools as novelty items!” Fleet chuckles. “We filmed it with a lobotomy tool on set. There is a lot of safety involved in doing something like that. Obviously, you don’t want to put any performer in any situation where they come close to putting anything real near their eye. We created this half lobotomy tool and did this complicated split screen with the lobotomy tool on a teeter totter. The Deep wasin one shot and Sister Sage reacted in the other shot. To marry the two ended up being a lot of CG work. Then there are these close-ups which are full CG. I always keep a dummy head that is painted gray that I use all of the time for reference. In macrophotography I filmed this lobotomy tool going right into the eye area. I did that because the tool is chrome, so it’s reflective and has ridges. It has an interesting reflective property. I was able to see how and what part of the human eye reflects onto the tool. A lot of that shot became about realistic reflections and lighting on the tool. Then heavy CG for displacing the eye and pushing the lobotomy tool into it. That was one of the more complicated sequences that we had to achieve.” In order to create an intimate moment between Ambrosius and The Deep, a toy version of the superhero was placed inside of the water tank that she could wrap a tentacle around. “The word that we like to use on this show is ‘grounded,’ and I like to say ‘grounded’ with an asterisk in this day and age because we’re grounded until we get to killing people in the craziest ways. In this case, having someone floating in the air and being ripped in half by two tendrils was all CG.” —Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor Sheep and chickens embark on a violent rampage courtesy of Compound V with the latter piercing the chest of a bodyguard belonging to Victoria Neuman. “Weirdly, that was one of our more traditional shots,’ Fleet states. “What is fun about that one is I asked for real chickens as reference. The chicken flying through his chest is real. It’s our chicken wrangler in green suit gently tossing a chicken. We blended two real plates together with some CG in the middle.” A connection was made with a sci-fi classic. “The sheep kill this bull, and we shot it is in this narrow corridor of fencing. When they run, I always equated it as the Trench Run in Star Wars and looked at the sheep as TIE fighters or X-wings coming at them.” The scene was one of the scarier moments for the visual effects team. Fleet explains, “When I read the script, I thought this could be the moment where we jump the shark. For the shots where the sheep are still and scream to the camera, Untold Studios did a bunch of R&D and came up with baboon teeth. I tried to keep anything real as much as possible, but, obviously, when sheep are flying, they have to be CG. I call it the Battlestar Galactica theory, where I like to shake the camera, overshoot shots and make it sloppy when they’re in the air so you can add motion blur. Comedy also helps sell visual effects.” The sheep injected with Compound V develop the ability to fly and were shot in an imperfect manner to help ground the scenes. Once injected with Compound V, Hugh Campbell Sr.develops the ability to phase through objects, including human beings. “We called it the Bro-nut because his name in the script is Wall Street Bro,” Fleet notes. “That was a complicated motion control shot, repeating the move over and over again. We had to shoot multiple plates of Simon Pegg and the guy in the bed. Special effects and prosthetics created a dummy guy with a hole in his chest with practical blood dripping down. It was meshing it together and getting the timing right in post. On top of that, there was the CG blood immediately around Simon Pegg.” The phasing effect had to avoid appearing as a dissolve. “I had this idea of doing high-frequency vibration on the X axis loosely based on how The Flash vibrates through walls. You want everything to have a loose motivation that then helps trigger the visuals. We tried not to overcomplicate that because, ultimately, you want something like that to be quick. If you spend too much time on phasing, it can look cheesy. In our case, it was a lot of false walls. Simon Pegg is running into a greenscreen hole which we plug in with a wall or coming out of one. I went off the actor’s action, and we added a light opacity mix with some X-axis shake.” Providing a different twist to the fights was the replacement of spurting blood with photoreal rubber duckies during a drug-induced hallucination. Homelanderbreaks a mirror which emphasizes his multiple personality disorder. “The original plan was that special effects was going to pre-break a mirror, and we were going to shoot Anthony Starr moving his head doing all of the performances in the different parts of the mirror,” Fleet reveals. “This was all based on a photo that my ex-brother-in-law sent me. He was walking down a street in Glendale, California, came across a broken mirror that someone had thrown out, and took a photo of himself where he had five heads in the mirror. We get there on the day, and I’m realizing that this is really complicated. Anthony has to do these five different performances, and we have to deal with infinite mirrors. At the last minute, I said, ‘We have to do this on a clean mirror.’ We did it on a clear mirror and gave Anthony different eyelines. The mirror break was all done in post, and we were able to cheat his head slightly and art-direct where the break crosses his chin. Editorial was able to do split screens for the timing of the dialogue.” “For the shots where the sheep are still and scream to the camera, Untold Studios did a bunch of R&D and came up with baboon teeth. I tried to keep anything real as much as possible, but, obviously, when sheep are flying, they have to be CG. I call it the Battlestar Galactica theory, where I like to shake the camera, overshoot shots and make it sloppy when they’re in the air so you can add motion blur. Comedy also helps sell visual effects.” —Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor Initially, the plan was to use a practical mirror, but creating a digital version proved to be the more effective solution. A different spin on the bloodbath occurs during a fight when a drugged Frenchiehallucinates as Kimiko Miyashirogoes on a killing spree. “We went back and forth with a lot of different concepts for what this hallucination would be,” Fleet remarks. “When we filmed it, we landed on Frenchie having a synesthesia moment where he’s seeing a lot of abstract colors flying in the air. We started getting into that in post and it wasn’t working. We went back to the rubber duckies, which goes back to the story of him in the bathtub. What’s in the bathtub? Rubber duckies, bubbles and water. There was a lot of physics and logic required to figure out how these rubber duckies could float out of someone’s neck. We decided on bubbles when Kimiko hits people’s heads. At one point, we had water when she got shot, but it wasn’t working, so we killed it. We probably did about 100 different versions. We got really detailed with our rubber duckie modeling because we didn’t want it to look cartoony. That took a long time.” Ambrosius, voiced by Tilda Swinton, gets a lot more screentime in Season 4. When Splintersplits in two was achieved heavily in CG. “Erik threw out the words ‘cellular mitosis’ early on as something he wanted to use,” Fleet states. “We shot Rob Benedict on a greenscreen doing all of the different performances for the clones that pop out. It was a crazy amount of CG work with Houdini and particle and skin effects. We previs’d the sequence so we had specific actions. One clone comes out to the right and the other pulls backwards.” What tends to go unnoticed by many is Splinter’s clones setting up for a press conference being held by Firecracker. “It’s funny how no one brings up the 22-hour motion control shot that we had to do with Splinter on the stage, which was the most complicated shot!” Fleet observes. “We have this sweeping long shot that brings you into the room and follows Splinter as he carries a container to the stage and hands it off to a clone, and then you reveal five more of them interweaving each other and interacting with all of these objects. It’s like a minute-long dance. First off, you have to choreograph it. We previs’d it, but then you need to get people to do it. We hired dancers and put different colored armbands on them. The camera is like another performer, and a metronome is going, which enables you to find a pace. That took about eight hours of rehearsal. Then Rob has to watch each one of their performances and mimic it to the beat. When he is handing off a box of cables, it’s to a double who is going to have to be erased and be him on the other side. They have to be almost perfect in their timing and lineup in order to take it over in visual effects and make it work.” #bouncing #rubber #duckies #flying #sheep
    WWW.VFXVOICE.COM
    BOUNCING FROM RUBBER DUCKIES AND FLYING SHEEP TO CLONES FOR THE BOYS SEASON 4
    By TREVOR HOGG Images courtesy of Prime Video. For those seeking an alternative to the MCU, Prime Video has two offerings of the live-action and animated variety that take the superhero genre into R-rated territory where the hands of the god-like figures get dirty, bloodied and severed. “The Boys is about the intersection of celebrity and politics using superheroes,” states Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor on The Boys. “Sometimes I see the news and I don’t even know we can write to catch up to it! But we try. Invincible is an intense look at an alternate DC Universe that has more grit to the superhero side of it all. On one hand, I was jealous watching Season 1 of Invincible because in animation you can do things that you can’t do in real life on a budget.” Season 4 does not tone down the blood, gore and body count. Fleet notes, “The writers almost have this dialogue with us. Sometimes, they’ll write in the script, ‘And Fleet will come up with a cool visual effect for how to kill this person.’ Or, ‘Chhiu, our fight coordinator, will make an awesome fight.’ It is a frequent topic of conversation. We’re constantly trying to be inventive and create new ways to kill people!” When Splinter (Rob Benedict) splits in two, the cloning effect was inspired by cellular mitosis. “The writers almost have this dialogue with us. Sometimes, they’ll write in the script, ‘And Fleet will come up with a cool visual effect for how to kill this person.’ Or, ‘Chhiu, our fight coordinator, will make an awesome fight.’ It is a frequent topic of conversation. We’re constantly trying to be inventive and create new ways to kill people!” —Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor A total of 1,600 visual effects shots were created for the eight episodes by ILM, Pixomondo, MPC Toronto, Spin VFX, DNEG, Untold Studios, Luma Pictures and Rocket Science VFX. Previs was a critical part of the process. “We have John Griffith [Previs Director], who owns a small company called CNCPT out of Texas, and he does wonderful Unreal Engine level previs,” Fleet remarks. “On set, we have a cartoon of what is going to be done, and you’ll be amazed, specifically for action and heavy visual effects stuff, how close those shots are to the previs when we finish.” Founding Director of Federal Bureau of Superhuman Affairs, Victoria Neuman, literally gets ripped in half by two tendrils coming out of Compound V-enhanced Billy Butcher, the leader of superhero resistance group The Boys. “The word that we like to use on this show is ‘grounded,’ and I like to say ‘grounded’ with an asterisk in this day and age because we’re grounded until we get to killing people in the craziest ways. In this case, having someone floating in the air and being ripped in half by two tendrils was all CG.” Multiple plates were shot to enable Simon Pegg to phase through the actor laying in a hospital bed. Testing can get rather elaborate. “For that end scene with Butcher’s tendrils, the room was two stories, and we were able to put the camera up high along with a bunch of blood cannons,” Fleet recalls. “When the body rips in half and explodes, there is a practical component. We rained down a bunch of real blood and guts right in front of Huey. It’s a known joke that we like to douse Jack Quaid with blood as much as possible! In this case, the special effects team led by Hudson Kenny needed to test it the day before, and I said, “I’ll be the guinea pig for the test.’ They covered the whole place with plastic like it was a Dexter kill room because you don’t want to destroy the set. I’m standing there in a white hazmat suit with goggles on, covered from head to toe in plastic and waiting as they’re tweaking all of these things. It sounds like World War II going on. They’re on walkie talkies to each other, and then all of a sudden, it’s ‘Five, four, three, two, one…’  And I get exploded with blood. I wanted to see what it was like, and it’s intense.” “On set, we have a cartoon of what is going to be done, and you’ll be amazed, specifically for action and heavy visual effects stuff, how close those shots are to the previs when we finish.” —Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor The Deep has a love affair with an octopus called Ambrosius, voiced by Tilda Swinton. “It’s implied bestiality!” Fleet laughs. “I would call it more of a romance. What was fun from my perspective is that I knew what the look was going to be [from Season 3], so then it’s about putting in the details and the animation. One of the instincts that you always have when you’re making a sea creature that talks to a human [is] you tend to want to give it human gestures and eyebrows. Erik Kripke [Creator, Executive Producer, Showrunner, Director, Writer] said, ‘No. We have to find things that an octopus could do that conveys the same emotion.’ That’s when ideas came in, such as putting a little The Deep toy inside the water tank. When Ambrosius is trying to have an intimate moment or connect with him, she can wrap a tentacle around that. My favorite experience doing Ambrosius was when The Deep is reading poetry to her on a bed. CG creatures touching humans is one of the more complicated things to do and make look real. Ambrosius’ tentacles reach for his arm, and it becomes an intimate moment. More than touching the skin, displacing the bedsheet as Ambrosius moved ended up becoming a lot of CG, and we had to go back and forth a few times to get that looking right; that turned out to be tricky.” A building is replaced by a massive crowd attending a rally being held by Homelander. In a twisted form of sexual foreplay, Sister Sage has The Deep perform a transorbital lobotomy on her. “Thank you, Amazon for selling lobotomy tools as novelty items!” Fleet chuckles. “We filmed it with a lobotomy tool on set. There is a lot of safety involved in doing something like that. Obviously, you don’t want to put any performer in any situation where they come close to putting anything real near their eye. We created this half lobotomy tool and did this complicated split screen with the lobotomy tool on a teeter totter. The Deep was [acting in a certain way] in one shot and Sister Sage reacted in the other shot. To marry the two ended up being a lot of CG work. Then there are these close-ups which are full CG. I always keep a dummy head that is painted gray that I use all of the time for reference. In macrophotography I filmed this lobotomy tool going right into the eye area. I did that because the tool is chrome, so it’s reflective and has ridges. It has an interesting reflective property. I was able to see how and what part of the human eye reflects onto the tool. A lot of that shot became about realistic reflections and lighting on the tool. Then heavy CG for displacing the eye and pushing the lobotomy tool into it. That was one of the more complicated sequences that we had to achieve.” In order to create an intimate moment between Ambrosius and The Deep, a toy version of the superhero was placed inside of the water tank that she could wrap a tentacle around. “The word that we like to use on this show is ‘grounded,’ and I like to say ‘grounded’ with an asterisk in this day and age because we’re grounded until we get to killing people in the craziest ways. In this case, having someone floating in the air and being ripped in half by two tendrils was all CG.” —Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor Sheep and chickens embark on a violent rampage courtesy of Compound V with the latter piercing the chest of a bodyguard belonging to Victoria Neuman. “Weirdly, that was one of our more traditional shots,’ Fleet states. “What is fun about that one is I asked for real chickens as reference. The chicken flying through his chest is real. It’s our chicken wrangler in green suit gently tossing a chicken. We blended two real plates together with some CG in the middle.” A connection was made with a sci-fi classic. “The sheep kill this bull, and we shot it is in this narrow corridor of fencing. When they run, I always equated it as the Trench Run in Star Wars and looked at the sheep as TIE fighters or X-wings coming at them.” The scene was one of the scarier moments for the visual effects team. Fleet explains, “When I read the script, I thought this could be the moment where we jump the shark. For the shots where the sheep are still and scream to the camera, Untold Studios did a bunch of R&D and came up with baboon teeth. I tried to keep anything real as much as possible, but, obviously, when sheep are flying, they have to be CG. I call it the Battlestar Galactica theory, where I like to shake the camera, overshoot shots and make it sloppy when they’re in the air so you can add motion blur. Comedy also helps sell visual effects.” The sheep injected with Compound V develop the ability to fly and were shot in an imperfect manner to help ground the scenes. Once injected with Compound V, Hugh Campbell Sr. (Simon Pegg) develops the ability to phase through objects, including human beings. “We called it the Bro-nut because his name in the script is Wall Street Bro,” Fleet notes. “That was a complicated motion control shot, repeating the move over and over again. We had to shoot multiple plates of Simon Pegg and the guy in the bed. Special effects and prosthetics created a dummy guy with a hole in his chest with practical blood dripping down. It was meshing it together and getting the timing right in post. On top of that, there was the CG blood immediately around Simon Pegg.” The phasing effect had to avoid appearing as a dissolve. “I had this idea of doing high-frequency vibration on the X axis loosely based on how The Flash vibrates through walls. You want everything to have a loose motivation that then helps trigger the visuals. We tried not to overcomplicate that because, ultimately, you want something like that to be quick. If you spend too much time on phasing, it can look cheesy. In our case, it was a lot of false walls. Simon Pegg is running into a greenscreen hole which we plug in with a wall or coming out of one. I went off the actor’s action, and we added a light opacity mix with some X-axis shake.” Providing a different twist to the fights was the replacement of spurting blood with photoreal rubber duckies during a drug-induced hallucination. Homelander (Anthony Starr) breaks a mirror which emphasizes his multiple personality disorder. “The original plan was that special effects was going to pre-break a mirror, and we were going to shoot Anthony Starr moving his head doing all of the performances in the different parts of the mirror,” Fleet reveals. “This was all based on a photo that my ex-brother-in-law sent me. He was walking down a street in Glendale, California, came across a broken mirror that someone had thrown out, and took a photo of himself where he had five heads in the mirror. We get there on the day, and I’m realizing that this is really complicated. Anthony has to do these five different performances, and we have to deal with infinite mirrors. At the last minute, I said, ‘We have to do this on a clean mirror.’ We did it on a clear mirror and gave Anthony different eyelines. The mirror break was all done in post, and we were able to cheat his head slightly and art-direct where the break crosses his chin. Editorial was able to do split screens for the timing of the dialogue.” “For the shots where the sheep are still and scream to the camera, Untold Studios did a bunch of R&D and came up with baboon teeth. I tried to keep anything real as much as possible, but, obviously, when sheep are flying, they have to be CG. I call it the Battlestar Galactica theory, where I like to shake the camera, overshoot shots and make it sloppy when they’re in the air so you can add motion blur. Comedy also helps sell visual effects.” —Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor Initially, the plan was to use a practical mirror, but creating a digital version proved to be the more effective solution. A different spin on the bloodbath occurs during a fight when a drugged Frenchie (Tomer Capone) hallucinates as Kimiko Miyashiro (Karen Fukuhara) goes on a killing spree. “We went back and forth with a lot of different concepts for what this hallucination would be,” Fleet remarks. “When we filmed it, we landed on Frenchie having a synesthesia moment where he’s seeing a lot of abstract colors flying in the air. We started getting into that in post and it wasn’t working. We went back to the rubber duckies, which goes back to the story of him in the bathtub. What’s in the bathtub? Rubber duckies, bubbles and water. There was a lot of physics and logic required to figure out how these rubber duckies could float out of someone’s neck. We decided on bubbles when Kimiko hits people’s heads. At one point, we had water when she got shot, but it wasn’t working, so we killed it. We probably did about 100 different versions. We got really detailed with our rubber duckie modeling because we didn’t want it to look cartoony. That took a long time.” Ambrosius, voiced by Tilda Swinton, gets a lot more screentime in Season 4. When Splinter (Rob Benedict) splits in two was achieved heavily in CG. “Erik threw out the words ‘cellular mitosis’ early on as something he wanted to use,” Fleet states. “We shot Rob Benedict on a greenscreen doing all of the different performances for the clones that pop out. It was a crazy amount of CG work with Houdini and particle and skin effects. We previs’d the sequence so we had specific actions. One clone comes out to the right and the other pulls backwards.” What tends to go unnoticed by many is Splinter’s clones setting up for a press conference being held by Firecracker (Valorie Curry). “It’s funny how no one brings up the 22-hour motion control shot that we had to do with Splinter on the stage, which was the most complicated shot!” Fleet observes. “We have this sweeping long shot that brings you into the room and follows Splinter as he carries a container to the stage and hands it off to a clone, and then you reveal five more of them interweaving each other and interacting with all of these objects. It’s like a minute-long dance. First off, you have to choreograph it. We previs’d it, but then you need to get people to do it. We hired dancers and put different colored armbands on them. The camera is like another performer, and a metronome is going, which enables you to find a pace. That took about eight hours of rehearsal. Then Rob has to watch each one of their performances and mimic it to the beat. When he is handing off a box of cables, it’s to a double who is going to have to be erased and be him on the other side. They have to be almost perfect in their timing and lineup in order to take it over in visual effects and make it work.”
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились
  • Il est vraiment inacceptable de voir le Festival d'Annecy 2025 se dérouler sous un soleil de plomb, alors que le MIFA (Marché International du Film d'Animation) semble s'enliser dans une absence totale de transparence et de chiffres concrets. Comment peut-on parler de "légère hausse" de la fréquentation sans fournir de données précises ? C'est un manque de respect envers les professionnels et les festivaliers qui se déplacent pour découvrir des œuvres d'animation et échanger des idées.

    Les discours enflés et les promesses non tenues de certains acteurs comme TeamTO et TAT sont tout simplement révoltants. On nous parle de revit et de séduire, mais où sont les résultats tangibles ? Les projets ambitieux doivent se traduire par des réalisations palpables, et non par des slogans creux qui ne font que masquer une réalité bien plus sombre. Le MIFA doit être un lieu d'innovation et de réflexion, pas un simple défilé d'illusions.

    Et que dire de l'organisation elle-même ? Les conférences, bien que nombreuses, manquent souvent de substance. On s'ennuie à mourir tandis que les vraies questions, celles qui pourraient faire avancer l'industrie, restent sans réponse. Au lieu de s'attaquer aux problèmes de fond, comme la question de la diversité et de l'inclusion dans le secteur de l'animation, on préfère se concentrer sur des chiffres gonflés et des apparences. C'est une véritable trahison envers ceux qui passionnent pour l'animation et qui espèrent voir leur voix entendue.

    Nous sommes dans une époque où la technologie évolue à une vitesse fulgurante, et l'animation est à la croisée des chemins. Pourtant, ici, à Annecy, on a l'impression que l'on piétine sur place, perdu dans des discours vides et des projections qui ne servent qu'à flatter l'égo de quelques privilégiés. Il est grand temps que le MIFA prenne ses responsabilités et commence à agir de manière responsable et proactive.

    Pourquoi ne pas offrir une vraie plateforme pour les jeunes talents ? Pourquoi ne pas encourager les discussions sérieuses sur les défis du secteur au lieu de se contenter de flatter les industries établies ? Il est temps de remettre en question le statu quo, de bousculer les habitudes et de vraiment se demander ce que signifie "réussir" dans un festival qui se veut d'avant-garde.

    En somme, le Festival d'Annecy et le MIFA doivent se réveiller. Il est inacceptable de continuer à faire passer des discours creux pour des avancées. Les passionnés d'animation méritent mieux que cela. Ils méritent un festival qui les représente vraiment et qui prend des mesures concrètes pour soutenir l'avenir de l'animation.

    #FestivalAnnecy #MIFA2025 #Animation #TeamTO #TAT
    Il est vraiment inacceptable de voir le Festival d'Annecy 2025 se dérouler sous un soleil de plomb, alors que le MIFA (Marché International du Film d'Animation) semble s'enliser dans une absence totale de transparence et de chiffres concrets. Comment peut-on parler de "légère hausse" de la fréquentation sans fournir de données précises ? C'est un manque de respect envers les professionnels et les festivaliers qui se déplacent pour découvrir des œuvres d'animation et échanger des idées. Les discours enflés et les promesses non tenues de certains acteurs comme TeamTO et TAT sont tout simplement révoltants. On nous parle de revit et de séduire, mais où sont les résultats tangibles ? Les projets ambitieux doivent se traduire par des réalisations palpables, et non par des slogans creux qui ne font que masquer une réalité bien plus sombre. Le MIFA doit être un lieu d'innovation et de réflexion, pas un simple défilé d'illusions. Et que dire de l'organisation elle-même ? Les conférences, bien que nombreuses, manquent souvent de substance. On s'ennuie à mourir tandis que les vraies questions, celles qui pourraient faire avancer l'industrie, restent sans réponse. Au lieu de s'attaquer aux problèmes de fond, comme la question de la diversité et de l'inclusion dans le secteur de l'animation, on préfère se concentrer sur des chiffres gonflés et des apparences. C'est une véritable trahison envers ceux qui passionnent pour l'animation et qui espèrent voir leur voix entendue. Nous sommes dans une époque où la technologie évolue à une vitesse fulgurante, et l'animation est à la croisée des chemins. Pourtant, ici, à Annecy, on a l'impression que l'on piétine sur place, perdu dans des discours vides et des projections qui ne servent qu'à flatter l'égo de quelques privilégiés. Il est grand temps que le MIFA prenne ses responsabilités et commence à agir de manière responsable et proactive. Pourquoi ne pas offrir une vraie plateforme pour les jeunes talents ? Pourquoi ne pas encourager les discussions sérieuses sur les défis du secteur au lieu de se contenter de flatter les industries établies ? Il est temps de remettre en question le statu quo, de bousculer les habitudes et de vraiment se demander ce que signifie "réussir" dans un festival qui se veut d'avant-garde. En somme, le Festival d'Annecy et le MIFA doivent se réveiller. Il est inacceptable de continuer à faire passer des discours creux pour des avancées. Les passionnés d'animation méritent mieux que cela. Ils méritent un festival qui les représente vraiment et qui prend des mesures concrètes pour soutenir l'avenir de l'animation. #FestivalAnnecy #MIFA2025 #Animation #TeamTO #TAT
    Annecy, jour 3 : TeamTO revit, TAT séduit, le MIFA questionne
    Le Festival d’Annecy 2025 se poursuit, sous un soleil de plomb. Les festivaliers sont très nombreux à se presser pour aller voir projections et conférences et la fréquentation est en légère hausse par rapport à l’an passé au niveau global
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    593
    1 Комментарии 0 Поделились
  • Alors qu'on assiste à l'essor fulgurant des imprimantes 3D de bureau, incarné par le phénomène Bambu Lab, il est plus que temps de tirer la sonnette d'alarme sur les dérives et les promesses non tenues de cette technologie. En effet, tout comme le monde du tennis a vu des géants comme Federer et Nadal se faire détrôner par Djokovic, le secteur de l'impression 3D semble être en train de sombrer dans une course effrénée vers le bas, où l'innovation est sacrifiée sur l'autel du profit rapide.

    Ces dernières années, le marché des imprimantes 3D a explosé, attirant des adeptes de tous horizons. Cependant, derrière cette façade brillante se cachent des problèmes techniques majeurs et une véritable désillusion pour les utilisateurs. Les entreprises, dont Bambu Lab, promeuvent leurs produits comme des solutions révolutionnaires, mais qu'en est-il réellement de la qualité et de la fiabilité ? Les défauts de fabrication, les pannes fréquentes et les logiciels bogués sont monnaie courante. Les utilisateurs se retrouvent souvent avec des équipements qui ne fonctionnent pas comme promis, les laissant frustrés et désillusionnés.

    En plus de cela, le soutien technique laisse à désirer. Les marques, trop occupées à vendre leurs imprimantes 3D de bureau dernier cri, négligent souvent l'assistance après-vente. Les utilisateurs se sentent abandonnés, avec des problèmes non résolus et des promesses non tenues. Qui peut tolérer une technologie qui, au lieu de faciliter la vie, la complique davantage ? Il est temps d'exiger une meilleure qualité, un véritable soutien et une transparence de la part de ces entreprises qui semblent plus préoccupées par leur image que par l'expérience utilisateur.

    Et que dire des matériaux utilisés ? Nous sommes bombardés de promesses de matériaux durables et respectueux de l'environnement, mais la réalité est tout autre. De nombreuses imprimantes 3D de bureau ne produisent que des objets fabriqués à partir de plastiques de mauvaise qualité, contribuant ainsi à la pollution. Est-ce vraiment le progrès que nous espérions ? Nous sommes censés être à l'avant-garde d'une révolution technologique, mais nous finissons par reproduire les erreurs du passé.

    Il est urgent que nous, en tant que consommateurs, prenions conscience de ces problèmes. Ne laissons pas les entreprises nous berner avec leurs discours marketing séduisants tandis qu'elles continuent à négliger la qualité et la durabilité de leurs produits. Il est temps de se lever et d'exiger des changements. Nous méritons mieux qu'une simple impression 3D de bureau qui ne tient pas ses promesses.

    #Impression3D #BambuLab #Technologie #Innovations #ConsommationResponsable
    Alors qu'on assiste à l'essor fulgurant des imprimantes 3D de bureau, incarné par le phénomène Bambu Lab, il est plus que temps de tirer la sonnette d'alarme sur les dérives et les promesses non tenues de cette technologie. En effet, tout comme le monde du tennis a vu des géants comme Federer et Nadal se faire détrôner par Djokovic, le secteur de l'impression 3D semble être en train de sombrer dans une course effrénée vers le bas, où l'innovation est sacrifiée sur l'autel du profit rapide. Ces dernières années, le marché des imprimantes 3D a explosé, attirant des adeptes de tous horizons. Cependant, derrière cette façade brillante se cachent des problèmes techniques majeurs et une véritable désillusion pour les utilisateurs. Les entreprises, dont Bambu Lab, promeuvent leurs produits comme des solutions révolutionnaires, mais qu'en est-il réellement de la qualité et de la fiabilité ? Les défauts de fabrication, les pannes fréquentes et les logiciels bogués sont monnaie courante. Les utilisateurs se retrouvent souvent avec des équipements qui ne fonctionnent pas comme promis, les laissant frustrés et désillusionnés. En plus de cela, le soutien technique laisse à désirer. Les marques, trop occupées à vendre leurs imprimantes 3D de bureau dernier cri, négligent souvent l'assistance après-vente. Les utilisateurs se sentent abandonnés, avec des problèmes non résolus et des promesses non tenues. Qui peut tolérer une technologie qui, au lieu de faciliter la vie, la complique davantage ? Il est temps d'exiger une meilleure qualité, un véritable soutien et une transparence de la part de ces entreprises qui semblent plus préoccupées par leur image que par l'expérience utilisateur. Et que dire des matériaux utilisés ? Nous sommes bombardés de promesses de matériaux durables et respectueux de l'environnement, mais la réalité est tout autre. De nombreuses imprimantes 3D de bureau ne produisent que des objets fabriqués à partir de plastiques de mauvaise qualité, contribuant ainsi à la pollution. Est-ce vraiment le progrès que nous espérions ? Nous sommes censés être à l'avant-garde d'une révolution technologique, mais nous finissons par reproduire les erreurs du passé. Il est urgent que nous, en tant que consommateurs, prenions conscience de ces problèmes. Ne laissons pas les entreprises nous berner avec leurs discours marketing séduisants tandis qu'elles continuent à négliger la qualité et la durabilité de leurs produits. Il est temps de se lever et d'exiger des changements. Nous méritons mieux qu'une simple impression 3D de bureau qui ne tient pas ses promesses. #Impression3D #BambuLab #Technologie #Innovations #ConsommationResponsable
    El fenómeno Bambu Lab y el auge de las impresoras 3D de escritorio
    Los amantes del tenis saben que Federer y Nadal dominaron la disciplina durante muchos años, hasta la llegada de Novak Djokovic, que volcó la clasificación. Este mismo fenómeno lo encontramos hoy en día en el mundo de la impresión 3D.…
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    527
    1 Комментарии 0 Поделились
  • trans health care, trans joy, resources for trans people, hormones, surgery, US Supreme Court, trans rights, healthcare access, Jules Gill-Peterson

    ---

    ## The Silent Struggles of Trans Individuals

    In the shadow of societal norms, where acceptance often feels like an unreachable dream, the journey of trans individuals is riddled with pain and longing. Each day, they navigate a world that frequently denies them their basic rights, subjecting them to the torment of invisibility and neglect. The ...
    trans health care, trans joy, resources for trans people, hormones, surgery, US Supreme Court, trans rights, healthcare access, Jules Gill-Peterson --- ## The Silent Struggles of Trans Individuals In the shadow of societal norms, where acceptance often feels like an unreachable dream, the journey of trans individuals is riddled with pain and longing. Each day, they navigate a world that frequently denies them their basic rights, subjecting them to the torment of invisibility and neglect. The ...
    This Historian Has Seen the Future of Trans Health Care: A Call for Change
    trans health care, trans joy, resources for trans people, hormones, surgery, US Supreme Court, trans rights, healthcare access, Jules Gill-Peterson --- ## The Silent Struggles of Trans Individuals In the shadow of societal norms, where acceptance often feels like an unreachable dream, the journey of trans individuals is riddled with pain and longing. Each day, they navigate a world that...
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Angry
    Sad
    534
    1 Комментарии 0 Поделились
  • Q&A: How anacondas, chickens, and locals may be able to coexist in the Amazon

    A coiled giant anaconda. They are the largest snake species in Brazil and play a major role in legends including the ‘Boiuna’ and the ‘Cobra Grande.’ CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey.

    Get the Popular Science daily newsletter
    Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday.

    South America’s lush Amazon region is a biodiversity hotspot, which means that every living thing must find a way to co-exist. Even some of the most feared snakes on the planet–anacondas. In a paper published June 16 in the journal Frontiers in Amphibian and Reptile Science, conservation biologists Beatriz Cosendey and Juarez Carlos Brito Pezzuti from the Federal University of Pará’s Center for Amazonian Studies in Brazil, analyze the key points behind the interactions between humans and the local anaconda populations.
    Ahead of the paper’s publication, the team at Frontiers conducted this wide-ranging Q&A with Conesday. It has not been altered.
    Frontiers: What inspired you to become a researcher?
    Beatriz Cosendey: As a child, I was fascinated by reports and documentaries about field research and often wondered what it took to be there and what kind of knowledge was being produced. Later, as an ecologist, I felt the need for approaches that better connected scientific research with real-world contexts. I became especially interested in perspectives that viewed humans not as separate from nature, but as part of ecological systems. This led me to explore integrative methods that incorporate local and traditional knowledge, aiming to make research more relevant and accessible to the communities involved.
    F: Can you tell us about the research you’re currently working on?
    BC: My research focuses on ethnobiology, an interdisciplinary field intersecting ecology, conservation, and traditional knowledge. We investigate not only the biodiversity of an area but also the relationship local communities have with surrounding species, providing a better understanding of local dynamics and areas needing special attention for conservation. After all, no one knows a place better than those who have lived there for generations. This deep familiarity allows for early detection of changes or environmental shifts. Additionally, developing a collaborative project with residents generates greater engagement, as they recognize themselves as active contributors; and collective participation is essential for effective conservation.
    Local boating the Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey.
    F: Could you tell us about one of the legends surrounding anacondas?
    BC: One of the greatest myths is about the Great Snake—a huge snake that is said to inhabit the Amazon River and sleep beneath the town. According to the dwellers, the Great Snake is an anaconda that has grown too large; its movements can shake the river’s waters, and its eyes look like fire in the darkness of night. People say anacondas can grow so big that they can swallow large animals—including humans or cattle—without difficulty.
    F: What could be the reasons why the traditional role of anacondas as a spiritual and mythological entity has changed? Do you think the fact that fewer anacondas have been seen in recent years contributes to their diminished importance as an mythological entity?
    BC: Not exactly. I believe the two are related, but not in a direct way. The mythology still exists, but among Aritapera dwellers, there’s a more practical, everyday concern—mainly the fear of losing their chickens. As a result, anacondas have come to be seen as stealthy thieves. These traits are mostly associated with smaller individuals, while the larger ones—which may still carry the symbolic weight of the ‘Great Snake’—tend to retreat to more sheltered areas; because of the presence of houses, motorized boats, and general noise, they are now seen much less frequently.
    A giant anaconda is being measured. Credit: Pedro Calazans.
    F: Can you share some of the quotes you’ve collected in interviews that show the attitude of community members towards anacondas? How do chickens come into play?
    BC: When talking about anacondas, one thing always comes up: chickens. “Chicken is herfavorite dish. If one clucks, she comes,” said one dweller. This kind of remark helps explain why the conflict is often framed in economic terms. During the interviews and conversations with local dwellers, many emphasized the financial impact of losing their animals: “The biggest loss is that they keep taking chicks and chickens…” or “You raise the chicken—you can’t just let it be eaten for free, right?”
    For them, it’s a loss of investment, especially since corn, which is used as chicken feed, is expensive. As one person put it: “We spend time feeding and raising the birds, and then the snake comes and takes them.” One dweller shared that, in an attempt to prevent another loss, he killed the anaconda and removed the last chicken it had swallowed from its belly—”it was still fresh,” he said—and used it for his meal, cooking the chicken for lunch so it wouldn’t go to waste.
    One of the Amazonas communities where the researchers conducted their research. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey.
    Some interviewees reported that they had to rebuild their chicken coops and pigsties because too many anacondas were getting in. Participants would point out where the anaconda had entered and explained that they came in through gaps or cracks but couldn’t get out afterwards because they ‘tufavam’ — a local term referring to the snake’s body swelling after ingesting prey.
    We saw chicken coops made with mesh, with nylon, some that worked and some that didn’t. Guided by the locals’ insights, we concluded that the best solution to compensate for the gaps between the wooden slats is to line the coop with a fine nylon mesh, and on the outside, a layer of wire mesh, which protects the inner mesh and prevents the entry of larger animals.
    F: Are there any common misconceptions about this area of research? How would you address them?
    BC: Yes, very much. Although ethnobiology is an old science, it’s still underexplored and often misunderstood. In some fields, there are ongoing debates about the robustness and scientific validity of the field and related areas. This is largely because the findings don’t always rely only on hard statistical data.
    However, like any other scientific field, it follows standardized methodologies, and no result is accepted without proper grounding. What happens is that ethnobiology leans more toward the human sciences, placing human beings and traditional knowledge as key variables within its framework.
    To address these misconceptions, I believe it’s important to emphasize that ethnobiology produces solid and relevant knowledge—especially in the context of conservation and sustainable development. It offers insights that purely biological approaches might overlook and helps build bridges between science and society.
    The study focused on the várzea regions of the Lower Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey.
    F: What are some of the areas of research you’d like to see tackled in the years ahead?
    BC: I’d like to see more conservation projects that include local communities as active participants rather than as passive observers. Incorporating their voices, perspectives, and needs not only makes initiatives more effective, but also more just. There is also great potential in recognizing and valuing traditional knowledge. Beyond its cultural significance, certain practices—such as the use of natural compounds—could become practical assets for other vulnerable regions. Once properly documented and understood, many of these approaches offer adaptable forms of environmental management and could help inform broader conservation strategies elsewhere.
    F: How has open science benefited the reach and impact of your research?
    BC: Open science is crucial for making research more accessible. By eliminating access barriers, it facilitates a broader exchange of knowledge—important especially for interdisciplinary research like mine which draws on multiple knowledge systems and gains value when shared widely. For scientific work, it ensures that knowledge reaches a wider audience, including practitioners and policymakers. This openness fosters dialogue across different sectors, making research more inclusive and encouraging greater collaboration among diverse groups.
    The Q&A can also be read here.
    #qampampa #how #anacondas #chickens #locals
    Q&A: How anacondas, chickens, and locals may be able to coexist in the Amazon
    A coiled giant anaconda. They are the largest snake species in Brazil and play a major role in legends including the ‘Boiuna’ and the ‘Cobra Grande.’ CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. South America’s lush Amazon region is a biodiversity hotspot, which means that every living thing must find a way to co-exist. Even some of the most feared snakes on the planet–anacondas. In a paper published June 16 in the journal Frontiers in Amphibian and Reptile Science, conservation biologists Beatriz Cosendey and Juarez Carlos Brito Pezzuti from the Federal University of Pará’s Center for Amazonian Studies in Brazil, analyze the key points behind the interactions between humans and the local anaconda populations. Ahead of the paper’s publication, the team at Frontiers conducted this wide-ranging Q&A with Conesday. It has not been altered. Frontiers: What inspired you to become a researcher? Beatriz Cosendey: As a child, I was fascinated by reports and documentaries about field research and often wondered what it took to be there and what kind of knowledge was being produced. Later, as an ecologist, I felt the need for approaches that better connected scientific research with real-world contexts. I became especially interested in perspectives that viewed humans not as separate from nature, but as part of ecological systems. This led me to explore integrative methods that incorporate local and traditional knowledge, aiming to make research more relevant and accessible to the communities involved. F: Can you tell us about the research you’re currently working on? BC: My research focuses on ethnobiology, an interdisciplinary field intersecting ecology, conservation, and traditional knowledge. We investigate not only the biodiversity of an area but also the relationship local communities have with surrounding species, providing a better understanding of local dynamics and areas needing special attention for conservation. After all, no one knows a place better than those who have lived there for generations. This deep familiarity allows for early detection of changes or environmental shifts. Additionally, developing a collaborative project with residents generates greater engagement, as they recognize themselves as active contributors; and collective participation is essential for effective conservation. Local boating the Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. F: Could you tell us about one of the legends surrounding anacondas? BC: One of the greatest myths is about the Great Snake—a huge snake that is said to inhabit the Amazon River and sleep beneath the town. According to the dwellers, the Great Snake is an anaconda that has grown too large; its movements can shake the river’s waters, and its eyes look like fire in the darkness of night. People say anacondas can grow so big that they can swallow large animals—including humans or cattle—without difficulty. F: What could be the reasons why the traditional role of anacondas as a spiritual and mythological entity has changed? Do you think the fact that fewer anacondas have been seen in recent years contributes to their diminished importance as an mythological entity? BC: Not exactly. I believe the two are related, but not in a direct way. The mythology still exists, but among Aritapera dwellers, there’s a more practical, everyday concern—mainly the fear of losing their chickens. As a result, anacondas have come to be seen as stealthy thieves. These traits are mostly associated with smaller individuals, while the larger ones—which may still carry the symbolic weight of the ‘Great Snake’—tend to retreat to more sheltered areas; because of the presence of houses, motorized boats, and general noise, they are now seen much less frequently. A giant anaconda is being measured. Credit: Pedro Calazans. F: Can you share some of the quotes you’ve collected in interviews that show the attitude of community members towards anacondas? How do chickens come into play? BC: When talking about anacondas, one thing always comes up: chickens. “Chicken is herfavorite dish. If one clucks, she comes,” said one dweller. This kind of remark helps explain why the conflict is often framed in economic terms. During the interviews and conversations with local dwellers, many emphasized the financial impact of losing their animals: “The biggest loss is that they keep taking chicks and chickens…” or “You raise the chicken—you can’t just let it be eaten for free, right?” For them, it’s a loss of investment, especially since corn, which is used as chicken feed, is expensive. As one person put it: “We spend time feeding and raising the birds, and then the snake comes and takes them.” One dweller shared that, in an attempt to prevent another loss, he killed the anaconda and removed the last chicken it had swallowed from its belly—”it was still fresh,” he said—and used it for his meal, cooking the chicken for lunch so it wouldn’t go to waste. One of the Amazonas communities where the researchers conducted their research. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. Some interviewees reported that they had to rebuild their chicken coops and pigsties because too many anacondas were getting in. Participants would point out where the anaconda had entered and explained that they came in through gaps or cracks but couldn’t get out afterwards because they ‘tufavam’ — a local term referring to the snake’s body swelling after ingesting prey. We saw chicken coops made with mesh, with nylon, some that worked and some that didn’t. Guided by the locals’ insights, we concluded that the best solution to compensate for the gaps between the wooden slats is to line the coop with a fine nylon mesh, and on the outside, a layer of wire mesh, which protects the inner mesh and prevents the entry of larger animals. F: Are there any common misconceptions about this area of research? How would you address them? BC: Yes, very much. Although ethnobiology is an old science, it’s still underexplored and often misunderstood. In some fields, there are ongoing debates about the robustness and scientific validity of the field and related areas. This is largely because the findings don’t always rely only on hard statistical data. However, like any other scientific field, it follows standardized methodologies, and no result is accepted without proper grounding. What happens is that ethnobiology leans more toward the human sciences, placing human beings and traditional knowledge as key variables within its framework. To address these misconceptions, I believe it’s important to emphasize that ethnobiology produces solid and relevant knowledge—especially in the context of conservation and sustainable development. It offers insights that purely biological approaches might overlook and helps build bridges between science and society. The study focused on the várzea regions of the Lower Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. F: What are some of the areas of research you’d like to see tackled in the years ahead? BC: I’d like to see more conservation projects that include local communities as active participants rather than as passive observers. Incorporating their voices, perspectives, and needs not only makes initiatives more effective, but also more just. There is also great potential in recognizing and valuing traditional knowledge. Beyond its cultural significance, certain practices—such as the use of natural compounds—could become practical assets for other vulnerable regions. Once properly documented and understood, many of these approaches offer adaptable forms of environmental management and could help inform broader conservation strategies elsewhere. F: How has open science benefited the reach and impact of your research? BC: Open science is crucial for making research more accessible. By eliminating access barriers, it facilitates a broader exchange of knowledge—important especially for interdisciplinary research like mine which draws on multiple knowledge systems and gains value when shared widely. For scientific work, it ensures that knowledge reaches a wider audience, including practitioners and policymakers. This openness fosters dialogue across different sectors, making research more inclusive and encouraging greater collaboration among diverse groups. The Q&A can also be read here. #qampampa #how #anacondas #chickens #locals
    WWW.POPSCI.COM
    Q&A: How anacondas, chickens, and locals may be able to coexist in the Amazon
    A coiled giant anaconda. They are the largest snake species in Brazil and play a major role in legends including the ‘Boiuna’ and the ‘Cobra Grande.’ CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. South America’s lush Amazon region is a biodiversity hotspot, which means that every living thing must find a way to co-exist. Even some of the most feared snakes on the planet–anacondas. In a paper published June 16 in the journal Frontiers in Amphibian and Reptile Science, conservation biologists Beatriz Cosendey and Juarez Carlos Brito Pezzuti from the Federal University of Pará’s Center for Amazonian Studies in Brazil, analyze the key points behind the interactions between humans and the local anaconda populations. Ahead of the paper’s publication, the team at Frontiers conducted this wide-ranging Q&A with Conesday. It has not been altered. Frontiers: What inspired you to become a researcher? Beatriz Cosendey: As a child, I was fascinated by reports and documentaries about field research and often wondered what it took to be there and what kind of knowledge was being produced. Later, as an ecologist, I felt the need for approaches that better connected scientific research with real-world contexts. I became especially interested in perspectives that viewed humans not as separate from nature, but as part of ecological systems. This led me to explore integrative methods that incorporate local and traditional knowledge, aiming to make research more relevant and accessible to the communities involved. F: Can you tell us about the research you’re currently working on? BC: My research focuses on ethnobiology, an interdisciplinary field intersecting ecology, conservation, and traditional knowledge. We investigate not only the biodiversity of an area but also the relationship local communities have with surrounding species, providing a better understanding of local dynamics and areas needing special attention for conservation. After all, no one knows a place better than those who have lived there for generations. This deep familiarity allows for early detection of changes or environmental shifts. Additionally, developing a collaborative project with residents generates greater engagement, as they recognize themselves as active contributors; and collective participation is essential for effective conservation. Local boating the Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. F: Could you tell us about one of the legends surrounding anacondas? BC: One of the greatest myths is about the Great Snake—a huge snake that is said to inhabit the Amazon River and sleep beneath the town. According to the dwellers, the Great Snake is an anaconda that has grown too large; its movements can shake the river’s waters, and its eyes look like fire in the darkness of night. People say anacondas can grow so big that they can swallow large animals—including humans or cattle—without difficulty. F: What could be the reasons why the traditional role of anacondas as a spiritual and mythological entity has changed? Do you think the fact that fewer anacondas have been seen in recent years contributes to their diminished importance as an mythological entity? BC: Not exactly. I believe the two are related, but not in a direct way. The mythology still exists, but among Aritapera dwellers, there’s a more practical, everyday concern—mainly the fear of losing their chickens. As a result, anacondas have come to be seen as stealthy thieves. These traits are mostly associated with smaller individuals (up to around 2–2.5 meters), while the larger ones—which may still carry the symbolic weight of the ‘Great Snake’—tend to retreat to more sheltered areas; because of the presence of houses, motorized boats, and general noise, they are now seen much less frequently. A giant anaconda is being measured. Credit: Pedro Calazans. F: Can you share some of the quotes you’ve collected in interviews that show the attitude of community members towards anacondas? How do chickens come into play? BC: When talking about anacondas, one thing always comes up: chickens. “Chicken is her [the anaconda’s] favorite dish. If one clucks, she comes,” said one dweller. This kind of remark helps explain why the conflict is often framed in economic terms. During the interviews and conversations with local dwellers, many emphasized the financial impact of losing their animals: “The biggest loss is that they keep taking chicks and chickens…” or “You raise the chicken—you can’t just let it be eaten for free, right?” For them, it’s a loss of investment, especially since corn, which is used as chicken feed, is expensive. As one person put it: “We spend time feeding and raising the birds, and then the snake comes and takes them.” One dweller shared that, in an attempt to prevent another loss, he killed the anaconda and removed the last chicken it had swallowed from its belly—”it was still fresh,” he said—and used it for his meal, cooking the chicken for lunch so it wouldn’t go to waste. One of the Amazonas communities where the researchers conducted their research. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. Some interviewees reported that they had to rebuild their chicken coops and pigsties because too many anacondas were getting in. Participants would point out where the anaconda had entered and explained that they came in through gaps or cracks but couldn’t get out afterwards because they ‘tufavam’ — a local term referring to the snake’s body swelling after ingesting prey. We saw chicken coops made with mesh, with nylon, some that worked and some that didn’t. Guided by the locals’ insights, we concluded that the best solution to compensate for the gaps between the wooden slats is to line the coop with a fine nylon mesh (to block smaller animals), and on the outside, a layer of wire mesh, which protects the inner mesh and prevents the entry of larger animals. F: Are there any common misconceptions about this area of research? How would you address them? BC: Yes, very much. Although ethnobiology is an old science, it’s still underexplored and often misunderstood. In some fields, there are ongoing debates about the robustness and scientific validity of the field and related areas. This is largely because the findings don’t always rely only on hard statistical data. However, like any other scientific field, it follows standardized methodologies, and no result is accepted without proper grounding. What happens is that ethnobiology leans more toward the human sciences, placing human beings and traditional knowledge as key variables within its framework. To address these misconceptions, I believe it’s important to emphasize that ethnobiology produces solid and relevant knowledge—especially in the context of conservation and sustainable development. It offers insights that purely biological approaches might overlook and helps build bridges between science and society. The study focused on the várzea regions of the Lower Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. F: What are some of the areas of research you’d like to see tackled in the years ahead? BC: I’d like to see more conservation projects that include local communities as active participants rather than as passive observers. Incorporating their voices, perspectives, and needs not only makes initiatives more effective, but also more just. There is also great potential in recognizing and valuing traditional knowledge. Beyond its cultural significance, certain practices—such as the use of natural compounds—could become practical assets for other vulnerable regions. Once properly documented and understood, many of these approaches offer adaptable forms of environmental management and could help inform broader conservation strategies elsewhere. F: How has open science benefited the reach and impact of your research? BC: Open science is crucial for making research more accessible. By eliminating access barriers, it facilitates a broader exchange of knowledge—important especially for interdisciplinary research like mine which draws on multiple knowledge systems and gains value when shared widely. For scientific work, it ensures that knowledge reaches a wider audience, including practitioners and policymakers. This openness fosters dialogue across different sectors, making research more inclusive and encouraging greater collaboration among diverse groups. The Q&A can also be read here.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    443
    2 Комментарии 0 Поделились
  • THIS Unexpected Rug Trend Is Taking Over—Here's How to Style It

    Pictured above: A dining room in Dallas, Texas, designed by Studio Thomas James.As you designa room at home, you may have specific ideas about the paint color, furniture placement, and even the lighting scheme your space requires to truly sing. But, if you're not also considering what type of rug will ground the entire look, this essential room-finishing touch may end up feeling like an afterthought. After all, one of the best ways to ensure your space looks expertly planned from top to bottom is to opt for a rug that can anchor the whole space—and, in many cases, that means a maximalist rug.A maximalist-style rug, or one that has a bold color, an abstract or asymmetrical pattern, an organic shape, distinctive pile texture, or unconventional application, offers a fresh answer to the perpetual design question, "What is this room missing?" Instead of defaulting to a neutral-colored, low-pile rug that goes largely unnoticed, a compelling case can be made for choosing a design that functions more as a tactile piece of art. Asha Chaudhary, the CEO of Jaipur, India-based rug brand Jaipur Living, has noticed many consumers moving away from "safe" interiors and embracing designs that pop with personality. "There’s a growing desire to design with individuality and soul. A vibrant or highly detailed rug can instantly transform a space by adding movement, contrast, and character, all in one single piece," she says.Ahead, we spoke to Chaudhary to get her essential tips for choosing the right maximalist rug for your design style, how to evaluate the construction of a piece, and even why you should think outside the box when it comes to the standard area rug shape. Turns out, this foundational mainstay can be a deeply personal expression of identity.Related StoriesWhen a Maximalist Rug Makes SenseJohn MerklAn outdoor lounge in Healdsburg, California, designed by Sheldon Harte.As you might imagine, integrating a maximalist rug into an existing aesthetic isn't about making a one-to-one swap. You'll want to refine your overall approach and potentially tweak elements of the room already in place, too."I like to think about rugs this way: Sometimes they play a supporting role, and other times, they’re the hero of the room," Chaudhary says. "Statement rugs are designed to stand out. They tell stories, stir emotion, and ground a space the way a bold piece of art would."In Chaudhary's work with interior designers who are selecting rugs for clients' high-end homes, she's noticed that tastes have recently swung toward a more maximalist ethos."Designers are leaning into expression and individuality," she says. "There’s growing interest in bold patterns, asymmetry, and designs that reflect the hand of the maker. Color-wise, we’re seeing more adventurous palettes: think jades, bordeauxes, and terracottas. And there’s a strong desire for rugs that feel personal, like they carry a story or a memory." Jaipur LivingJaipur Living’s Manchaha rugs are one-of-a-kind, hand-knotted pieces woven from upcycled hand-spun yarn that follow a freeform design of the artisan’s choosing.Jaipur LivingJaipur Living is uniquely positioned to fulfill the need for one-of-a-kind rugs that are not just visually striking within a space, but deeply meaningful as well. The brand's Manchaha collectioncomprises rugs made of upcycled yarn, each hand-knotted by rural Indian artisans in freeform shapes that capture the imagination."Each piece is designed from the heart of the artisan, with no predetermined pattern, just emotion, inspiration, and memory woven together by hand. What excites me most is this shift away from perfection and toward beauty that feels lived-in, layered, and real," she adds.There’s a strong desire for rugs that feel personal, like they carry a story or a memory.Related StoryHow to Choose the Right Maximalist RugBrittany AmbridgeDesign firm Drake/Anderson reimagined this Greenwich, Connecticut, living room. Good news for those who are taking a slow-decorating approach with their home: Finding the right maximalist rug for your space means looking at the big picture first."Most shoppers start with size and color, but the first question should really be, 'How will this space be used?' That answer guides everything—material, construction, and investment," says Chaudhary.Are you styling an off-limits living room or a lively family den where guests may occasionally wander in with shoes on? In considering your materials, you may want to opt for a performance-fabric rug for areas subject to frequent wear and tear, but Chaudhary has a clear favorite for nearly all other spaces. "Wool is the gold standard. It’s naturally resilient, stain-resistant, and has excellent bounce-back, meaning it recovers well from foot traffic and furniture impressions," she says. "It’s also moisture-wicking and insulating, making it an ideal choice for both comfort and durability."As far as construction goes, Chaudhary breaks down the most widely available options on the market: A hand-knotted rug, crafted by tying individual knots, is the most durable construction and can last decades, even with daily use.Hand-tufted rugs offer a beautiful look at a more accessible price point, but typically won’t have the same lifespan. Power-loomed rugs can be a great solution for high-traffic areas when made with quality materials. Though they fall at the higher end of the price spectrum, hand-knotted rugs aren't meant to be untouchable—after all, their quality construction helps ensure that they can stand up to minor mishaps in day-to-day living. This can shift your appreciation of a rug from a humble underfoot accent to a long-lasting art piece worthy of care and intentional restoration when the time comes. "Understanding these distinctions helps consumers make smarter, more lasting investments for their homes," Chaudhary says. Related StoryOpting for Unconventional Applications Lesley UnruhSarah Vaile designed this vibrant vestibule in Chicago, Illinois.Maximalist rugs encompass an impressively broad category, and even if you already have an area rug rolled out that you're happy with, there are alternative shapes you can choose, or ways in which they can imbue creative expression far beyond the floor."I’ve seen some incredibly beautiful applications of rugs as wall art. Especially when it comes to smaller or one-of-a-kind pieces, hanging them allows people to appreciate the detail, texture, and artistry at eye level," says Chaudhary. "Some designers have also used narrow runners as table coverings or layered over larger textiles for added dimension."Another interesting facet of maximalist rugs is that you can think outside the rectangle in terms of silhouette."We’re seeing more interest in irregular rug shapes, think soft ovals, curves, even asymmetrical outlines," says Chaudhary. "Clients are designing with more fluidity and movement in mind, especially in open-plan spaces. Extra-long runners, oversized circles, and multi-shape layouts are also trending."Ultimately, the best maximalist rug for you is one that meets your home's needs while highlighting your personal style. In spaces where dramatic light fixtures or punchy paint colors aren't practical or allowed, a statement-making rug is the ideal solution. While trends will continue to evolve, honing in on a unique—even tailor-made—design will help ensure aesthetic longevity. Follow House Beautiful on Instagram and TikTok.
    #this #unexpected #rug #trend #taking
    THIS Unexpected Rug Trend Is Taking Over—Here's How to Style It
    Pictured above: A dining room in Dallas, Texas, designed by Studio Thomas James.As you designa room at home, you may have specific ideas about the paint color, furniture placement, and even the lighting scheme your space requires to truly sing. But, if you're not also considering what type of rug will ground the entire look, this essential room-finishing touch may end up feeling like an afterthought. After all, one of the best ways to ensure your space looks expertly planned from top to bottom is to opt for a rug that can anchor the whole space—and, in many cases, that means a maximalist rug.A maximalist-style rug, or one that has a bold color, an abstract or asymmetrical pattern, an organic shape, distinctive pile texture, or unconventional application, offers a fresh answer to the perpetual design question, "What is this room missing?" Instead of defaulting to a neutral-colored, low-pile rug that goes largely unnoticed, a compelling case can be made for choosing a design that functions more as a tactile piece of art. Asha Chaudhary, the CEO of Jaipur, India-based rug brand Jaipur Living, has noticed many consumers moving away from "safe" interiors and embracing designs that pop with personality. "There’s a growing desire to design with individuality and soul. A vibrant or highly detailed rug can instantly transform a space by adding movement, contrast, and character, all in one single piece," she says.Ahead, we spoke to Chaudhary to get her essential tips for choosing the right maximalist rug for your design style, how to evaluate the construction of a piece, and even why you should think outside the box when it comes to the standard area rug shape. Turns out, this foundational mainstay can be a deeply personal expression of identity.Related StoriesWhen a Maximalist Rug Makes SenseJohn MerklAn outdoor lounge in Healdsburg, California, designed by Sheldon Harte.As you might imagine, integrating a maximalist rug into an existing aesthetic isn't about making a one-to-one swap. You'll want to refine your overall approach and potentially tweak elements of the room already in place, too."I like to think about rugs this way: Sometimes they play a supporting role, and other times, they’re the hero of the room," Chaudhary says. "Statement rugs are designed to stand out. They tell stories, stir emotion, and ground a space the way a bold piece of art would."In Chaudhary's work with interior designers who are selecting rugs for clients' high-end homes, she's noticed that tastes have recently swung toward a more maximalist ethos."Designers are leaning into expression and individuality," she says. "There’s growing interest in bold patterns, asymmetry, and designs that reflect the hand of the maker. Color-wise, we’re seeing more adventurous palettes: think jades, bordeauxes, and terracottas. And there’s a strong desire for rugs that feel personal, like they carry a story or a memory." Jaipur LivingJaipur Living’s Manchaha rugs are one-of-a-kind, hand-knotted pieces woven from upcycled hand-spun yarn that follow a freeform design of the artisan’s choosing.Jaipur LivingJaipur Living is uniquely positioned to fulfill the need for one-of-a-kind rugs that are not just visually striking within a space, but deeply meaningful as well. The brand's Manchaha collectioncomprises rugs made of upcycled yarn, each hand-knotted by rural Indian artisans in freeform shapes that capture the imagination."Each piece is designed from the heart of the artisan, with no predetermined pattern, just emotion, inspiration, and memory woven together by hand. What excites me most is this shift away from perfection and toward beauty that feels lived-in, layered, and real," she adds.There’s a strong desire for rugs that feel personal, like they carry a story or a memory.Related StoryHow to Choose the Right Maximalist RugBrittany AmbridgeDesign firm Drake/Anderson reimagined this Greenwich, Connecticut, living room. Good news for those who are taking a slow-decorating approach with their home: Finding the right maximalist rug for your space means looking at the big picture first."Most shoppers start with size and color, but the first question should really be, 'How will this space be used?' That answer guides everything—material, construction, and investment," says Chaudhary.Are you styling an off-limits living room or a lively family den where guests may occasionally wander in with shoes on? In considering your materials, you may want to opt for a performance-fabric rug for areas subject to frequent wear and tear, but Chaudhary has a clear favorite for nearly all other spaces. "Wool is the gold standard. It’s naturally resilient, stain-resistant, and has excellent bounce-back, meaning it recovers well from foot traffic and furniture impressions," she says. "It’s also moisture-wicking and insulating, making it an ideal choice for both comfort and durability."As far as construction goes, Chaudhary breaks down the most widely available options on the market: A hand-knotted rug, crafted by tying individual knots, is the most durable construction and can last decades, even with daily use.Hand-tufted rugs offer a beautiful look at a more accessible price point, but typically won’t have the same lifespan. Power-loomed rugs can be a great solution for high-traffic areas when made with quality materials. Though they fall at the higher end of the price spectrum, hand-knotted rugs aren't meant to be untouchable—after all, their quality construction helps ensure that they can stand up to minor mishaps in day-to-day living. This can shift your appreciation of a rug from a humble underfoot accent to a long-lasting art piece worthy of care and intentional restoration when the time comes. "Understanding these distinctions helps consumers make smarter, more lasting investments for their homes," Chaudhary says. Related StoryOpting for Unconventional Applications Lesley UnruhSarah Vaile designed this vibrant vestibule in Chicago, Illinois.Maximalist rugs encompass an impressively broad category, and even if you already have an area rug rolled out that you're happy with, there are alternative shapes you can choose, or ways in which they can imbue creative expression far beyond the floor."I’ve seen some incredibly beautiful applications of rugs as wall art. Especially when it comes to smaller or one-of-a-kind pieces, hanging them allows people to appreciate the detail, texture, and artistry at eye level," says Chaudhary. "Some designers have also used narrow runners as table coverings or layered over larger textiles for added dimension."Another interesting facet of maximalist rugs is that you can think outside the rectangle in terms of silhouette."We’re seeing more interest in irregular rug shapes, think soft ovals, curves, even asymmetrical outlines," says Chaudhary. "Clients are designing with more fluidity and movement in mind, especially in open-plan spaces. Extra-long runners, oversized circles, and multi-shape layouts are also trending."Ultimately, the best maximalist rug for you is one that meets your home's needs while highlighting your personal style. In spaces where dramatic light fixtures or punchy paint colors aren't practical or allowed, a statement-making rug is the ideal solution. While trends will continue to evolve, honing in on a unique—even tailor-made—design will help ensure aesthetic longevity. Follow House Beautiful on Instagram and TikTok. #this #unexpected #rug #trend #taking
    WWW.HOUSEBEAUTIFUL.COM
    THIS Unexpected Rug Trend Is Taking Over—Here's How to Style It
    Pictured above: A dining room in Dallas, Texas, designed by Studio Thomas James.As you design (or redesign) a room at home, you may have specific ideas about the paint color, furniture placement, and even the lighting scheme your space requires to truly sing. But, if you're not also considering what type of rug will ground the entire look, this essential room-finishing touch may end up feeling like an afterthought. After all, one of the best ways to ensure your space looks expertly planned from top to bottom is to opt for a rug that can anchor the whole space—and, in many cases, that means a maximalist rug.A maximalist-style rug, or one that has a bold color, an abstract or asymmetrical pattern, an organic shape, distinctive pile texture, or unconventional application (such as functioning as a wall mural), offers a fresh answer to the perpetual design question, "What is this room missing?" Instead of defaulting to a neutral-colored, low-pile rug that goes largely unnoticed, a compelling case can be made for choosing a design that functions more as a tactile piece of art. Asha Chaudhary, the CEO of Jaipur, India-based rug brand Jaipur Living, has noticed many consumers moving away from "safe" interiors and embracing designs that pop with personality. "There’s a growing desire to design with individuality and soul. A vibrant or highly detailed rug can instantly transform a space by adding movement, contrast, and character, all in one single piece," she says.Ahead, we spoke to Chaudhary to get her essential tips for choosing the right maximalist rug for your design style, how to evaluate the construction of a piece, and even why you should think outside the box when it comes to the standard area rug shape. Turns out, this foundational mainstay can be a deeply personal expression of identity.Related StoriesWhen a Maximalist Rug Makes SenseJohn MerklAn outdoor lounge in Healdsburg, California, designed by Sheldon Harte.As you might imagine, integrating a maximalist rug into an existing aesthetic isn't about making a one-to-one swap. You'll want to refine your overall approach and potentially tweak elements of the room already in place, too."I like to think about rugs this way: Sometimes they play a supporting role, and other times, they’re the hero of the room," Chaudhary says. "Statement rugs are designed to stand out. They tell stories, stir emotion, and ground a space the way a bold piece of art would."In Chaudhary's work with interior designers who are selecting rugs for clients' high-end homes, she's noticed that tastes have recently swung toward a more maximalist ethos."Designers are leaning into expression and individuality," she says. "There’s growing interest in bold patterns, asymmetry, and designs that reflect the hand of the maker. Color-wise, we’re seeing more adventurous palettes: think jades, bordeauxes, and terracottas. And there’s a strong desire for rugs that feel personal, like they carry a story or a memory." Jaipur LivingJaipur Living’s Manchaha rugs are one-of-a-kind, hand-knotted pieces woven from upcycled hand-spun yarn that follow a freeform design of the artisan’s choosing.Jaipur LivingJaipur Living is uniquely positioned to fulfill the need for one-of-a-kind rugs that are not just visually striking within a space, but deeply meaningful as well. The brand's Manchaha collection (meaning “expression of my heart” in Hindi) comprises rugs made of upcycled yarn, each hand-knotted by rural Indian artisans in freeform shapes that capture the imagination."Each piece is designed from the heart of the artisan, with no predetermined pattern, just emotion, inspiration, and memory woven together by hand. What excites me most is this shift away from perfection and toward beauty that feels lived-in, layered, and real," she adds.There’s a strong desire for rugs that feel personal, like they carry a story or a memory.Related StoryHow to Choose the Right Maximalist RugBrittany AmbridgeDesign firm Drake/Anderson reimagined this Greenwich, Connecticut, living room. Good news for those who are taking a slow-decorating approach with their home: Finding the right maximalist rug for your space means looking at the big picture first."Most shoppers start with size and color, but the first question should really be, 'How will this space be used?' That answer guides everything—material, construction, and investment," says Chaudhary.Are you styling an off-limits living room or a lively family den where guests may occasionally wander in with shoes on? In considering your materials, you may want to opt for a performance-fabric rug for areas subject to frequent wear and tear, but Chaudhary has a clear favorite for nearly all other spaces. "Wool is the gold standard. It’s naturally resilient, stain-resistant, and has excellent bounce-back, meaning it recovers well from foot traffic and furniture impressions," she says. "It’s also moisture-wicking and insulating, making it an ideal choice for both comfort and durability."As far as construction goes, Chaudhary breaks down the most widely available options on the market: A hand-knotted rug, crafted by tying individual knots, is the most durable construction and can last decades, even with daily use.Hand-tufted rugs offer a beautiful look at a more accessible price point, but typically won’t have the same lifespan. Power-loomed rugs can be a great solution for high-traffic areas when made with quality materials. Though they fall at the higher end of the price spectrum, hand-knotted rugs aren't meant to be untouchable—after all, their quality construction helps ensure that they can stand up to minor mishaps in day-to-day living. This can shift your appreciation of a rug from a humble underfoot accent to a long-lasting art piece worthy of care and intentional restoration when the time comes. "Understanding these distinctions helps consumers make smarter, more lasting investments for their homes," Chaudhary says. Related StoryOpting for Unconventional Applications Lesley UnruhSarah Vaile designed this vibrant vestibule in Chicago, Illinois.Maximalist rugs encompass an impressively broad category, and even if you already have an area rug rolled out that you're happy with, there are alternative shapes you can choose, or ways in which they can imbue creative expression far beyond the floor."I’ve seen some incredibly beautiful applications of rugs as wall art. Especially when it comes to smaller or one-of-a-kind pieces, hanging them allows people to appreciate the detail, texture, and artistry at eye level," says Chaudhary. "Some designers have also used narrow runners as table coverings or layered over larger textiles for added dimension."Another interesting facet of maximalist rugs is that you can think outside the rectangle in terms of silhouette."We’re seeing more interest in irregular rug shapes, think soft ovals, curves, even asymmetrical outlines," says Chaudhary. "Clients are designing with more fluidity and movement in mind, especially in open-plan spaces. Extra-long runners, oversized circles, and multi-shape layouts are also trending."Ultimately, the best maximalist rug for you is one that meets your home's needs while highlighting your personal style. In spaces where dramatic light fixtures or punchy paint colors aren't practical or allowed (in the case of renters), a statement-making rug is the ideal solution. While trends will continue to evolve, honing in on a unique—even tailor-made—design will help ensure aesthetic longevity. Follow House Beautiful on Instagram and TikTok.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    465
    2 Комментарии 0 Поделились
  • How AI is reshaping the future of healthcare and medical research

    Transcript       
    PETER LEE: “In ‘The Little Black Bag,’ a classic science fiction story, a high-tech doctor’s kit of the future is accidentally transported back to the 1950s, into the shaky hands of a washed-up, alcoholic doctor. The ultimate medical tool, it redeems the doctor wielding it, allowing him to practice gratifyingly heroic medicine. … The tale ends badly for the doctor and his treacherous assistant, but it offered a picture of how advanced technology could transform medicine—powerful when it was written nearly 75 years ago and still so today. What would be the Al equivalent of that little black bag? At this moment when new capabilities are emerging, how do we imagine them into medicine?”          
    This is The AI Revolution in Medicine, Revisited. I’m your host, Peter Lee.   
    Shortly after OpenAI’s GPT-4 was publicly released, Carey Goldberg, Dr. Zak Kohane, and I published The AI Revolution in Medicine to help educate the world of healthcare and medical research about the transformative impact this new generative AI technology could have. But because we wrote the book when GPT-4 was still a secret, we had to speculate. Now, two years later, what did we get right, and what did we get wrong?    
    In this series, we’ll talk to clinicians, patients, hospital administrators, and others to understand the reality of AI in the field and where we go from here.  The book passage I read at the top is from “Chapter 10: The Big Black Bag.” 
    In imagining AI in medicine, Carey, Zak, and I included in our book two fictional accounts. In the first, a medical resident consults GPT-4 on her personal phone as the patient in front of her crashes. Within seconds, it offers an alternate response based on recent literature. In the second account, a 90-year-old woman with several chronic conditions is living independently and receiving near-constant medical support from an AI aide.   
    In our conversations with the guests we’ve spoken to so far, we’ve caught a glimpse of these predicted futures, seeing how clinicians and patients are actually using AI today and how developers are leveraging the technology in the healthcare products and services they’re creating. In fact, that first fictional account isn’t so fictional after all, as most of the doctors in the real world actually appear to be using AI at least occasionally—and sometimes much more than occasionally—to help in their daily clinical work. And as for the second fictional account, which is more of a science fiction account, it seems we are indeed on the verge of a new way of delivering and receiving healthcare, though the future is still very much open. 
    As we continue to examine the current state of AI in healthcare and its potential to transform the field, I’m pleased to welcome Bill Gates and Sébastien Bubeck.  
    Bill may be best known as the co-founder of Microsoft, having created the company with his childhood friend Paul Allen in 1975. He’s now the founder of Breakthrough Energy, which aims to advance clean energy innovation, and TerraPower, a company developing groundbreaking nuclear energy and science technologies. He also chairs the world’s largest philanthropic organization, the Gates Foundation, and focuses on solving a variety of health challenges around the globe and here at home. 
    Sébastien is a research lead at OpenAI. He was previously a distinguished scientist, vice president of AI, and a colleague of mine here at Microsoft, where his work included spearheading the development of the family of small language models known as Phi. While at Microsoft, he also coauthored the discussion-provoking 2023 paper “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence,” which presented the results of early experiments with GPT-4 conducted by a small team from Microsoft Research.     
    Here’s my conversation with Bill Gates and Sébastien Bubeck. 
    LEE: Bill, welcome. 
    BILL GATES: Thank you. 
    LEE: Seb … 
    SÉBASTIEN BUBECK: Yeah. Hi, hi, Peter. Nice to be here. 
    LEE: You know, one of the things that I’ve been doing just to get the conversation warmed up is to talk about origin stories, and what I mean about origin stories is, you know, what was the first contact that you had with large language models or the concept of generative AI that convinced you or made you think that something really important was happening? 
    And so, Bill, I think I’ve heard the story about, you know, the time when the OpenAI folks—Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and others—showed you something, but could we hear from you what those early encounters were like and what was going through your mind?  
    GATES: Well, I’d been visiting OpenAI soon after it was created to see things like GPT-2 and to see the little arm they had that was trying to match human manipulation and, you know, looking at their games like Dota that they were trying to get as good as human play. And honestly, I didn’t think the language model stuff they were doing, even when they got to GPT-3, would show the ability to learn, you know, in the same sense that a human reads a biology book and is able to take that knowledge and access it not only to pass a test but also to create new medicines. 
    And so my challenge to them was that if their LLM could get a five on the advanced placement biology test, then I would say, OK, it took biologic knowledge and encoded it in an accessible way and that I didn’t expect them to do that very quickly but it would be profound.  
    And it was only about six months after I challenged them to do that, that an early version of GPT-4 they brought up to a dinner at my house, and in fact, it answered most of the questions that night very well. The one it got totally wrong, we were … because it was so good, we kept thinking, Oh, we must be wrong. It turned out it was a math weaknessthat, you know, we later understood that that was an area of, weirdly, of incredible weakness of those early models. But, you know, that was when I realized, OK, the age of cheap intelligence was at its beginning. 
    LEE: Yeah. So I guess it seems like you had something similar to me in that my first encounters, I actually harbored some skepticism. Is it fair to say you were skeptical before that? 
    GATES: Well, the idea that we’ve figured out how to encode and access knowledge in this very deep sense without even understanding the nature of the encoding, … 
    LEE: Right.  
    GATES: … that is a bit weird.  
    LEE: Yeah. 
    GATES: We have an algorithm that creates the computation, but even say, OK, where is the president’s birthday stored in there? Where is this fact stored in there? The fact that even now when we’re playing around, getting a little bit more sense of it, it’s opaque to us what the semantic encoding is, it’s, kind of, amazing to me. I thought the invention of knowledge storage would be an explicit way of encoding knowledge, not an implicit statistical training. 
    LEE: Yeah, yeah. All right. So, Seb, you know, on this same topic, you know, I got—as we say at Microsoft—I got pulled into the tent. 
    BUBECK: Yes.  
    LEE: Because this was a very secret project. And then, um, I had the opportunity to select a small number of researchers in MSRto join and start investigating this thing seriously. And the first person I pulled in was you. 
    BUBECK: Yeah. 
    LEE: And so what were your first encounters? Because I actually don’t remember what happened then. 
    BUBECK: Oh, I remember it very well.My first encounter with GPT-4 was in a meeting with the two of you, actually. But my kind of first contact, the first moment where I realized that something was happening with generative AI, was before that. And I agree with Bill that I also wasn’t too impressed by GPT-3. 
    I though that it was kind of, you know, very naturally mimicking the web, sort of parroting what was written there in a nice way. Still in a way which seemed very impressive. But it wasn’t really intelligent in any way. But shortly after GPT-3, there was a model before GPT-4 that really shocked me, and this was the first image generation model, DALL-E 1. 
    So that was in 2021. And I will forever remember the press release of OpenAI where they had this prompt of an avocado chair and then you had this image of the avocado chair.And what really shocked me is that clearly the model kind of “understood” what is a chair, what is an avocado, and was able to merge those concepts. 
    So this was really, to me, the first moment where I saw some understanding in those models.  
    LEE: So this was, just to get the timing right, that was before I pulled you into the tent. 
    BUBECK: That was before. That was like a year before. 
    LEE: Right.  
    BUBECK: And now I will tell you how, you know, we went from that moment to the meeting with the two of you and GPT-4. 
    So once I saw this kind of understanding, I thought, OK, fine. It understands concept, but it’s still not able to reason. It cannot—as, you know, Bill was saying—it cannot learn from your document. It cannot reason.  
    So I set out to try to prove that. You know, this is what I was in the business of at the time, trying to prove things in mathematics. So I was trying to prove that basically autoregressive transformers could never reason. So I was trying to prove this. And after a year of work, I had something reasonable to show. And so I had the meeting with the two of you, and I had this example where I wanted to say, there is no way that an LLM is going to be able to do x. 
    And then as soon as I … I don’t know if you remember, Bill. But as soon as I said that, you said, oh, but wait a second. I had, you know, the OpenAI crew at my house recently, and they showed me a new model. Why don’t we ask this new model this question?  
    LEE: Yeah.
    BUBECK: And we did, and it solved it on the spot. And that really, honestly, just changed my life. Like, you know, I had been working for a year trying to say that this was impossible. And just right there, it was shown to be possible.  
    LEE:One of the very first things I got interested in—because I was really thinking a lot about healthcare—was healthcare and medicine. 
    And I don’t know if the two of you remember, but I ended up doing a lot of tests. I ran through, you know, step one and step two of the US Medical Licensing Exam. Did a whole bunch of other things. I wrote this big report. It was, you know, I can’t remember … a couple hundred pages.  
    And I needed to share this with someone. I didn’t … there weren’t too many people I could share it with. So I sent, I think, a copy to you, Bill. Sent a copy to you, Seb.  
    I hardly slept for about a week putting that report together. And, yeah, and I kept working on it. But I was far from alone. I think everyone who was in the tent, so to speak, in those early days was going through something pretty similar. All right. So I think … of course, a lot of what I put in the report also ended up being examples that made it into the book. 
    But the main purpose of this conversation isn’t to reminisce aboutor indulge in those reminiscences but to talk about what’s happening in healthcare and medicine. And, you know, as I said, we wrote this book. We did it very, very quickly. Seb, you helped. Bill, you know, you provided a review and some endorsements. 
    But, you know, honestly, we didn’t know what we were talking about because no one had access to this thing. And so we just made a bunch of guesses. So really, the whole thing I wanted to probe with the two of you is, now with two years of experience out in the world, what, you know, what do we think is happening today? 
    You know, is AI actually having an impact, positive or negative, on healthcare and medicine? And what do we now think is going to happen in the next two years, five years, or 10 years? And so I realize it’s a little bit too abstract to just ask it that way. So let me just try to narrow the discussion and guide us a little bit.  
    Um, the kind of administrative and clerical work, paperwork, around healthcare—and we made a lot of guesses about that—that appears to be going well, but, you know, Bill, I know we’ve discussed that sometimes that you think there ought to be a lot more going on. Do you have a viewpoint on how AI is actually finding its way into reducing paperwork? 
    GATES: Well, I’m stunned … I don’t think there should be a patient-doctor meeting where the AI is not sitting in and both transcribing, offering to help with the paperwork, and even making suggestions, although the doctor will be the one, you know, who makes the final decision about the diagnosis and whatever prescription gets done.  
    It’s so helpful. You know, when that patient goes home and their, you know, son who wants to understand what happened has some questions, that AI should be available to continue that conversation. And the way you can improve that experience and streamline things and, you know, involve the people who advise you. I don’t understand why that’s not more adopted, because there you still have the human in the loop making that final decision. 
    But even for, like, follow-up calls to make sure the patient did things, to understand if they have concerns and knowing when to escalate back to the doctor, the benefit is incredible. And, you know, that thing is ready for prime time. That paradigm is ready for prime time, in my view. 
    LEE: Yeah, there are some good products, but it seems like the number one use right now—and we kind of got this from some of the previous guests in previous episodes—is the use of AI just to respond to emails from patients.Does that make sense to you? 
    BUBECK: Yeah. So maybe I want to second what Bill was saying but maybe take a step back first. You know, two years ago, like, the concept of clinical scribes, which is one of the things that we’re talking about right now, it would have sounded, in fact, it sounded two years ago, borderline dangerous. Because everybody was worried about hallucinations. What happened if you have this AI listening in and then it transcribes, you know, something wrong? 
    Now, two years later, I think it’s mostly working. And in fact, it is not yet, you know, fully adopted. You’re right. But it is in production. It is used, you know, in many, many places. So this rate of progress is astounding because it wasn’t obvious that we would be able to overcome those obstacles of hallucination. It’s not to say that hallucinations are fully solved. In the case of the closed system, they are.  
    Now, I think more generally what’s going on in the background is that there is something that we, that certainly I, underestimated, which is this management overhead. So I think the reason why this is not adopted everywhere is really a training and teaching aspect. People need to be taught, like, those systems, how to interact with them. 
    And one example that I really like, a study that recently appeared where they tried to use ChatGPT for diagnosis and they were comparing doctors without and with ChatGPT. And the amazing thing … so this was a set of cases where the accuracy of the doctors alone was around 75%. ChatGPT alone was 90%. So that’s already kind of mind blowing. But then the kicker is that doctors with ChatGPT was 80%.  
    Intelligence alone is not enough. It’s also how it’s presented, how you interact with it. And ChatGPT, it’s an amazing tool. Obviously, I absolutely love it. But it’s not … you don’t want a doctor to have to type in, you know, prompts and use it that way. 
    It should be, as Bill was saying, kind of running continuously in the background, sending you notifications. And you have to be really careful of the rate at which those notifications are being sent. Because if they are too frequent, then the doctor will learn to ignore them. So you have to … all of those things matter, in fact, at least as much as the level of intelligence of the machine. 
    LEE: One of the things I think about, Bill, in that scenario that you described, doctors do some thinking about the patient when they write the note. So, you know, I’m always a little uncertain whether it’s actually … you know, you wouldn’t necessarily want to fully automate this, I don’t think. Or at least there needs to be some prompt to the doctor to make sure that the doctor puts some thought into what happened in the encounter with the patient. Does that make sense to you at all? 
    GATES: At this stage, you know, I’d still put the onus on the doctor to write the conclusions and the summary and not delegate that. 
    The tradeoffs you make a little bit are somewhat dependent on the situation you’re in. If you’re in Africa,
    So, yes, the doctor’s still going to have to do a lot of work, but just the quality of letting the patient and the people around them interact and ask questions and have things explained, that alone is such a quality improvement. It’s mind blowing.  
    LEE: So since you mentioned, you know, Africa—and, of course, this touches on the mission and some of the priorities of the Gates Foundation and this idea of democratization of access to expert medical care—what’s the most interesting stuff going on right now? Are there people and organizations or technologies that are impressing you or that you’re tracking? 
    GATES: Yeah. So the Gates Foundation has given out a lot of grants to people in Africa doing education, agriculture but more healthcare examples than anything. And the way these things start off, they often start out either being patient-centric in a narrow situation, like, OK, I’m a pregnant woman; talk to me. Or, I have infectious disease symptoms; talk to me. Or they’re connected to a health worker where they’re helping that worker get their job done. And we have lots of pilots out, you know, in both of those cases.  
    The dream would be eventually to have the thing the patient consults be so broad that it’s like having a doctor available who understands the local things.  
    LEE: Right.  
    GATES: We’re not there yet. But over the next two or three years, you know, particularly given the worsening financial constraints against African health systems, where the withdrawal of money has been dramatic, you know, figuring out how to take this—what I sometimes call “free intelligence”—and build a quality health system around that, we will have to be more radical in low-income countries than any rich country is ever going to be.  
    LEE: Also, there’s maybe a different regulatory environment, so some of those things maybe are easier? Because right now, I think the world hasn’t figured out how to and whether to regulate, let’s say, an AI that might give a medical diagnosis or write a prescription for a medication. 
    BUBECK: Yeah. I think one issue with this, and it’s also slowing down the deployment of AI in healthcare more generally, is a lack of proper benchmark. Because, you know, you were mentioning the USMLE, for example. That’s a great test to test human beings and their knowledge of healthcare and medicine. But it’s not a great test to give to an AI. 
    It’s not asking the right questions. So finding what are the right questions to test whether an AI system is ready to give diagnosis in a constrained setting, that’s a very, very important direction, which to my surprise, is not yet accelerating at the rate that I was hoping for. 
    LEE: OK, so that gives me an excuse to get more now into the core AI tech because something I’ve discussed with both of you is this issue of what are the right tests. And you both know the very first test I give to any new spin of an LLM is I present a patient, the results—a mythical patient—the results of my physical exam, my mythical physical exam. Maybe some results of some initial labs. And then I present or propose a differential diagnosis. And if you’re not in medicine, a differential diagnosis you can just think of as a prioritized list of the possible diagnoses that fit with all that data. And in that proposed differential, I always intentionally make two mistakes. 
    I make a textbook technical error in one of the possible elements of the differential diagnosis, and I have an error of omission. And, you know, I just want to know, does the LLM understand what I’m talking about? And all the good ones out there do now. But then I want to know, can it spot the errors? And then most importantly, is it willing to tell me I’m wrong, that I’ve made a mistake?  
    That last piece seems really hard for AI today. And so let me ask you first, Seb, because at the time of this taping, of course, there was a new spin of GPT-4o last week that became overly sycophantic. In other words, it was actually prone in that test of mine not only to not tell me I’m wrong, but it actually praised me for the creativity of my differential.What’s up with that? 
    BUBECK: Yeah, I guess it’s a testament to the fact that training those models is still more of an art than a science. So it’s a difficult job. Just to be clear with the audience, we have rolled back thatversion of GPT-4o, so now we don’t have the sycophant version out there. 
    Yeah, no, it’s a really difficult question. It has to do … as you said, it’s very technical. It has to do with the post-training and how, like, where do you nudge the model? So, you know, there is this very classical by now technique called RLHF, where you push the model in the direction of a certain reward model. So the reward model is just telling the model, you know, what behavior is good, what behavior is bad. 
    But this reward model is itself an LLM, and, you know, Bill was saying at the very beginning of the conversation that we don’t really understand how those LLMs deal with concepts like, you know, where is the capital of France located? Things like that. It is the same thing for this reward model. We don’t know why it says that it prefers one output to another, and whether this is correlated with some sycophancy is, you know, something that we discovered basically just now. That if you push too hard in optimization on this reward model, you will get a sycophant model. 
    So it’s kind of … what I’m trying to say is we became too good at what we were doing, and we ended up, in fact, in a trap of the reward model. 
    LEE: I mean, you do want … it’s a difficult balance because you do want models to follow your desires and … 
    BUBECK: It’s a very difficult, very difficult balance. 
    LEE: So this brings up then the following question for me, which is the extent to which we think we’ll need to have specially trained models for things. So let me start with you, Bill. Do you have a point of view on whether we will need to, you know, quote-unquote take AI models to med school? Have them specially trained? Like, if you were going to deploy something to give medical care in underserved parts of the world, do we need to do something special to create those models? 
    GATES: We certainly need to teach them the African languages and the unique dialects so that the multimedia interactions are very high quality. We certainly need to teach them the disease prevalence and unique disease patterns like, you know, neglected tropical diseases and malaria. So we need to gather a set of facts that somebody trying to go for a US customer base, you know, wouldn’t necessarily have that in there. 
    Those two things are actually very straightforward because the additional training time is small. I’d say for the next few years, we’ll also need to do reinforcement learning about the context of being a doctor and how important certain behaviors are. Humans learn over the course of their life to some degree that, I’m in a different context and the way I behave in terms of being willing to criticize or be nice, you know, how important is it? Who’s here? What’s my relationship to them?  
    Right now, these machines don’t have that broad social experience. And so if you know it’s going to be used for health things, a lot of reinforcement learning of the very best humans in that context would still be valuable. Eventually, the models will, having read all the literature of the world about good doctors, bad doctors, it’ll understand as soon as you say, “I want you to be a doctor diagnosing somebody.” All of the implicit reinforcement that fits that situation, you know, will be there.
    LEE: Yeah.
    GATES: And so I hope three years from now, we don’t have to do that reinforcement learning. But today, for any medical context, you would want a lot of data to reinforce tone, willingness to say things when, you know, there might be something significant at stake. 
    LEE: Yeah. So, you know, something Bill said, kind of, reminds me of another thing that I think we missed, which is, the context also … and the specialization also pertains to different, I guess, what we still call “modes,” although I don’t know if the idea of multimodal is the same as it was two years ago. But, you know, what do you make of all of the hubbub around—in fact, within Microsoft Research, this is a big deal, but I think we’re far from alone—you know, medical images and vision, video, proteins and molecules, cell, you know, cellular data and so on. 
    BUBECK: Yeah. OK. So there is a lot to say to everything … to the last, you know, couple of minutes. Maybe on the specialization aspect, you know, I think there is, hiding behind this, a really fundamental scientific question of whether eventually we have a singular AGIthat kind of knows everything and you can just put, you know, explain your own context and it will just get it and understand everything. 
    That’s one vision. I have to say, I don’t particularly believe in this vision. In fact, we humans are not like that at all. I think, hopefully, we are general intelligences, yet we have to specialize a lot. And, you know, I did myself a lot of RL, reinforcement learning, on mathematics. Like, that’s what I did, you know, spent a lot of time doing that. And I didn’t improve on other aspects. You know, in fact, I probably degraded in other aspects.So it’s … I think it’s an important example to have in mind. 
    LEE: I think I might disagree with you on that, though, because, like, doesn’t a model have to see both good science and bad science in order to be able to gain the ability to discern between the two? 
    BUBECK: Yeah, no, that absolutely. I think there is value in seeing the generality, in having a very broad base. But then you, kind of, specialize on verticals. And this is where also, you know, open-weights model, which we haven’t talked about yet, are really important because they allow you to provide this broad base to everyone. And then you can specialize on top of it. 
    LEE: So we have about three hours of stuff to talk about, but our time is actually running low.
    BUBECK: Yes, yes, yes.  
    LEE: So I think I want … there’s a more provocative question. It’s almost a silly question, but I need to ask it of the two of you, which is, is there a future, you know, where AI replaces doctors or replaces, you know, medical specialties that we have today? So what does the world look like, say, five years from now? 
    GATES: Well, it’s important to distinguish healthcare discovery activity from healthcare delivery activity. We focused mostly on delivery. I think it’s very much within the realm of possibility that the AI is not only accelerating healthcare discovery but substituting for a lot of the roles of, you know, I’m an organic chemist, or I run various types of assays. I can see those, which are, you know, testable-output-type jobs but with still very high value, I can see, you know, some replacement in those areas before the doctor.  
    The doctor, still understanding the human condition and long-term dialogues, you know, they’ve had a lifetime of reinforcement of that, particularly when you get into areas like mental health. So I wouldn’t say in five years, either people will choose to adopt it, but it will be profound that there’ll be this nearly free intelligence that can do follow-up, that can help you, you know, make sure you went through different possibilities. 
    And so I’d say, yes, we’ll have doctors, but I’d say healthcare will be massively transformed in its quality and in efficiency by AI in that time period. 
    LEE: Is there a comparison, useful comparison, say, between doctors and, say, programmers, computer programmers, or doctors and, I don’t know, lawyers? 
    GATES: Programming is another one that has, kind of, a mathematical correctness to it, you know, and so the objective function that you’re trying to reinforce to, as soon as you can understand the state machines, you can have something that’s “checkable”; that’s correct. So I think programming, you know, which is weird to say, that the machine will beat us at most programming tasks before we let it take over roles that have deep empathy, you know, physical presence and social understanding in them. 
    LEE: Yeah. By the way, you know, I fully expect in five years that AI will produce mathematical proofs that are checkable for validity, easily checkable, because they’ll be written in a proof-checking language like Lean or something but will be so complex that no human mathematician can understand them. I expect that to happen.  
    I can imagine in some fields, like cellular biology, we could have the same situation in the future because the molecular pathways, the chemistry, biochemistry of human cells or living cells is as complex as any mathematics, and so it seems possible that we may be in a state where in wet lab, we see, Oh yeah, this actually works, but no one can understand why. 
    BUBECK: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think I really agree with Bill’s distinction of the discovery and the delivery, and indeed, the discovery’s when you can check things, and at the end, there is an artifact that you can verify. You know, you can run the protocol in the wet lab and seeproduced what you wanted. So I absolutely agree with that.  
    And in fact, you know, we don’t have to talk five years from now. I don’t know if you know, but just recently, there was a paper that was published on a scientific discovery using o3- mini. So this is really amazing. And, you know, just very quickly, just so people know, it was about this statistical physics model, the frustrated Potts model, which has to do with coloring, and basically, the case of three colors, like, more than two colors was open for a long time, and o3 was able to reduce the case of three colors to two colors.  
    LEE: Yeah. 
    BUBECK: Which is just, like, astounding. And this is not … this is now. This is happening right now. So this is something that I personally didn’t expect it would happen so quickly, and it’s due to those reasoning models.  
    Now, on the delivery side, I would add something more to it for the reason why doctors and, in fact, lawyers and coders will remain for a long time, and it’s because we still don’t understand how those models generalize. Like, at the end of the day, we are not able to tell you when they are confronted with a really new, novel situation, whether they will work or not. 
    Nobody is able to give you that guarantee. And I think until we understand this generalization better, we’re not going to be willing to just let the system in the wild without human supervision. 
    LEE: But don’t human doctors, human specialists … so, for example, a cardiologist sees a patient in a certain way that a nephrologist … 
    BUBECK: Yeah.
    LEE: … or an endocrinologist might not.
    BUBECK: That’s right. But another cardiologist will understand and, kind of, expect a certain level of generalization from their peer. And this, we just don’t have it with AI models. Now, of course, you’re exactly right. That generalization is also hard for humans. Like, if you have a human trained for one task and you put them into another task, then you don’t … you often don’t know.
    LEE: OK. You know, the podcast is focused on what’s happened over the last two years. But now, I’d like one provocative prediction about what you think the world of AI and medicine is going to be at some point in the future. You pick your timeframe. I don’t care if it’s two years or 20 years from now, but, you know, what do you think will be different about AI in medicine in that future than today? 
    BUBECK: Yeah, I think the deployment is going to accelerate soon. Like, we’re really not missing very much. There is this enormous capability overhang. Like, even if progress completely stopped, with current systems, we can do a lot more than what we’re doing right now. So I think this will … this has to be realized, you know, sooner rather than later. 
    And I think it’s probably dependent on these benchmarks and proper evaluation and tying this with regulation. So these are things that take time in human society and for good reason. But now we already are at two years; you know, give it another two years and it should be really …  
    LEE: Will AI prescribe your medicines? Write your prescriptions? 
    BUBECK: I think yes. I think yes. 
    LEE: OK. Bill? 
    GATES: Well, I think the next two years, we’ll have massive pilots, and so the amount of use of the AI, still in a copilot-type mode, you know, we should get millions of patient visits, you know, both in general medicine and in the mental health side, as well. And I think that’s going to build up both the data and the confidence to give the AI some additional autonomy. You know, are you going to let it talk to you at night when you’re panicked about your mental health with some ability to escalate?
    And, you know, I’ve gone so far as to tell politicians with national health systems that if they deploy AI appropriately, that the quality of care, the overload of the doctors, the improvement in the economics will be enough that their voters will be stunned because they just don’t expect this, and, you know, they could be reelectedjust on this one thing of fixing what is a very overloaded and economically challenged health system in these rich countries. 
    You know, my personal role is going to be to make sure that in the poorer countries, there isn’t some lag; in fact, in many cases, that we’ll be more aggressive because, you know, we’re comparing to having no access to doctors at all. And, you know, so I think whether it’s India or Africa, there’ll be lessons that are globally valuable because we need medical intelligence. And, you know, thank god AI is going to provide a lot of that. 
    LEE: Well, on that optimistic note, I think that’s a good way to end. Bill, Seb, really appreciate all of this.  
    I think the most fundamental prediction we made in the book is that AI would actually find its way into the practice of medicine, and I think that that at least has come true, maybe in different ways than we expected, but it’s come true, and I think it’ll only accelerate from here. So thanks again, both of you.  
    GATES: Yeah. Thanks, you guys. 
    BUBECK: Thank you, Peter. Thanks, Bill. 
    LEE: I just always feel such a sense of privilege to have a chance to interact and actually work with people like Bill and Sébastien.   
    With Bill, I’m always amazed at how practically minded he is. He’s really thinking about the nuts and bolts of what AI might be able to do for people, and his thoughts about underserved parts of the world, the idea that we might actually be able to empower people with access to expert medical knowledge, I think is both inspiring and amazing.  
    And then, Seb, Sébastien Bubeck, he’s just absolutely a brilliant mind. He has a really firm grip on the deep mathematics of artificial intelligence and brings that to bear in his research and development work. And where that mathematics takes him isn’t just into the nuts and bolts of algorithms but into philosophical questions about the nature of intelligence.  
    One of the things that Sébastien brought up was the state of evaluation of AI systems. And indeed, he was fairly critical in our conversation. But of course, the world of AI research and development is just moving so fast, and indeed, since we recorded our conversation, OpenAI, in fact, released a new evaluation metric that is directly relevant to medical applications, and that is something called HealthBench. And Microsoft Research also released a new evaluation approach or process called ADeLe.  
    HealthBench and ADeLe are examples of new approaches to evaluating AI models that are less about testing their knowledge and ability to pass multiple-choice exams and instead are evaluation approaches designed to assess how well AI models are able to complete tasks that actually arise every day in typical healthcare or biomedical research settings. These are examples of really important good work that speak to how well AI models work in the real world of healthcare and biomedical research and how well they can collaborate with human beings in those settings. 
    You know, I asked Bill and Seb to make some predictions about the future. You know, my own answer, I expect that we’re going to be able to use AI to change how we diagnose patients, change how we decide treatment options.  
    If you’re a doctor or a nurse and you encounter a patient, you’ll ask questions, do a physical exam, you know, call out for labs just like you do today, but then you’ll be able to engage with AI based on all of that data and just ask, you know, based on all the other people who have gone through the same experience, who have similar data, how were they diagnosed? How were they treated? What were their outcomes? And what does that mean for the patient I have right now? Some people call it the “patients like me” paradigm. And I think that’s going to become real because of AI within our lifetimes. That idea of really grounding the delivery in healthcare and medical practice through data and intelligence, I actually now don’t see any barriers to that future becoming real.  
    I’d like to extend another big thank you to Bill and Sébastien for their time. And to our listeners, as always, it’s a pleasure to have you along for the ride. I hope you’ll join us for our remaining conversations, as well as a second coauthor roundtable with Carey and Zak.  
    Until next time.  
    #how #reshaping #future #healthcare #medical
    How AI is reshaping the future of healthcare and medical research
    Transcript        PETER LEE: “In ‘The Little Black Bag,’ a classic science fiction story, a high-tech doctor’s kit of the future is accidentally transported back to the 1950s, into the shaky hands of a washed-up, alcoholic doctor. The ultimate medical tool, it redeems the doctor wielding it, allowing him to practice gratifyingly heroic medicine. … The tale ends badly for the doctor and his treacherous assistant, but it offered a picture of how advanced technology could transform medicine—powerful when it was written nearly 75 years ago and still so today. What would be the Al equivalent of that little black bag? At this moment when new capabilities are emerging, how do we imagine them into medicine?”           This is The AI Revolution in Medicine, Revisited. I’m your host, Peter Lee.    Shortly after OpenAI’s GPT-4 was publicly released, Carey Goldberg, Dr. Zak Kohane, and I published The AI Revolution in Medicine to help educate the world of healthcare and medical research about the transformative impact this new generative AI technology could have. But because we wrote the book when GPT-4 was still a secret, we had to speculate. Now, two years later, what did we get right, and what did we get wrong?     In this series, we’ll talk to clinicians, patients, hospital administrators, and others to understand the reality of AI in the field and where we go from here.  The book passage I read at the top is from “Chapter 10: The Big Black Bag.”  In imagining AI in medicine, Carey, Zak, and I included in our book two fictional accounts. In the first, a medical resident consults GPT-4 on her personal phone as the patient in front of her crashes. Within seconds, it offers an alternate response based on recent literature. In the second account, a 90-year-old woman with several chronic conditions is living independently and receiving near-constant medical support from an AI aide.    In our conversations with the guests we’ve spoken to so far, we’ve caught a glimpse of these predicted futures, seeing how clinicians and patients are actually using AI today and how developers are leveraging the technology in the healthcare products and services they’re creating. In fact, that first fictional account isn’t so fictional after all, as most of the doctors in the real world actually appear to be using AI at least occasionally—and sometimes much more than occasionally—to help in their daily clinical work. And as for the second fictional account, which is more of a science fiction account, it seems we are indeed on the verge of a new way of delivering and receiving healthcare, though the future is still very much open.  As we continue to examine the current state of AI in healthcare and its potential to transform the field, I’m pleased to welcome Bill Gates and Sébastien Bubeck.   Bill may be best known as the co-founder of Microsoft, having created the company with his childhood friend Paul Allen in 1975. He’s now the founder of Breakthrough Energy, which aims to advance clean energy innovation, and TerraPower, a company developing groundbreaking nuclear energy and science technologies. He also chairs the world’s largest philanthropic organization, the Gates Foundation, and focuses on solving a variety of health challenges around the globe and here at home.  Sébastien is a research lead at OpenAI. He was previously a distinguished scientist, vice president of AI, and a colleague of mine here at Microsoft, where his work included spearheading the development of the family of small language models known as Phi. While at Microsoft, he also coauthored the discussion-provoking 2023 paper “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence,” which presented the results of early experiments with GPT-4 conducted by a small team from Microsoft Research.      Here’s my conversation with Bill Gates and Sébastien Bubeck.  LEE: Bill, welcome.  BILL GATES: Thank you.  LEE: Seb …  SÉBASTIEN BUBECK: Yeah. Hi, hi, Peter. Nice to be here.  LEE: You know, one of the things that I’ve been doing just to get the conversation warmed up is to talk about origin stories, and what I mean about origin stories is, you know, what was the first contact that you had with large language models or the concept of generative AI that convinced you or made you think that something really important was happening?  And so, Bill, I think I’ve heard the story about, you know, the time when the OpenAI folks—Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and others—showed you something, but could we hear from you what those early encounters were like and what was going through your mind?   GATES: Well, I’d been visiting OpenAI soon after it was created to see things like GPT-2 and to see the little arm they had that was trying to match human manipulation and, you know, looking at their games like Dota that they were trying to get as good as human play. And honestly, I didn’t think the language model stuff they were doing, even when they got to GPT-3, would show the ability to learn, you know, in the same sense that a human reads a biology book and is able to take that knowledge and access it not only to pass a test but also to create new medicines.  And so my challenge to them was that if their LLM could get a five on the advanced placement biology test, then I would say, OK, it took biologic knowledge and encoded it in an accessible way and that I didn’t expect them to do that very quickly but it would be profound.   And it was only about six months after I challenged them to do that, that an early version of GPT-4 they brought up to a dinner at my house, and in fact, it answered most of the questions that night very well. The one it got totally wrong, we were … because it was so good, we kept thinking, Oh, we must be wrong. It turned out it was a math weaknessthat, you know, we later understood that that was an area of, weirdly, of incredible weakness of those early models. But, you know, that was when I realized, OK, the age of cheap intelligence was at its beginning.  LEE: Yeah. So I guess it seems like you had something similar to me in that my first encounters, I actually harbored some skepticism. Is it fair to say you were skeptical before that?  GATES: Well, the idea that we’ve figured out how to encode and access knowledge in this very deep sense without even understanding the nature of the encoding, …  LEE: Right.   GATES: … that is a bit weird.   LEE: Yeah.  GATES: We have an algorithm that creates the computation, but even say, OK, where is the president’s birthday stored in there? Where is this fact stored in there? The fact that even now when we’re playing around, getting a little bit more sense of it, it’s opaque to us what the semantic encoding is, it’s, kind of, amazing to me. I thought the invention of knowledge storage would be an explicit way of encoding knowledge, not an implicit statistical training.  LEE: Yeah, yeah. All right. So, Seb, you know, on this same topic, you know, I got—as we say at Microsoft—I got pulled into the tent.  BUBECK: Yes.   LEE: Because this was a very secret project. And then, um, I had the opportunity to select a small number of researchers in MSRto join and start investigating this thing seriously. And the first person I pulled in was you.  BUBECK: Yeah.  LEE: And so what were your first encounters? Because I actually don’t remember what happened then.  BUBECK: Oh, I remember it very well.My first encounter with GPT-4 was in a meeting with the two of you, actually. But my kind of first contact, the first moment where I realized that something was happening with generative AI, was before that. And I agree with Bill that I also wasn’t too impressed by GPT-3.  I though that it was kind of, you know, very naturally mimicking the web, sort of parroting what was written there in a nice way. Still in a way which seemed very impressive. But it wasn’t really intelligent in any way. But shortly after GPT-3, there was a model before GPT-4 that really shocked me, and this was the first image generation model, DALL-E 1.  So that was in 2021. And I will forever remember the press release of OpenAI where they had this prompt of an avocado chair and then you had this image of the avocado chair.And what really shocked me is that clearly the model kind of “understood” what is a chair, what is an avocado, and was able to merge those concepts.  So this was really, to me, the first moment where I saw some understanding in those models.   LEE: So this was, just to get the timing right, that was before I pulled you into the tent.  BUBECK: That was before. That was like a year before.  LEE: Right.   BUBECK: And now I will tell you how, you know, we went from that moment to the meeting with the two of you and GPT-4.  So once I saw this kind of understanding, I thought, OK, fine. It understands concept, but it’s still not able to reason. It cannot—as, you know, Bill was saying—it cannot learn from your document. It cannot reason.   So I set out to try to prove that. You know, this is what I was in the business of at the time, trying to prove things in mathematics. So I was trying to prove that basically autoregressive transformers could never reason. So I was trying to prove this. And after a year of work, I had something reasonable to show. And so I had the meeting with the two of you, and I had this example where I wanted to say, there is no way that an LLM is going to be able to do x.  And then as soon as I … I don’t know if you remember, Bill. But as soon as I said that, you said, oh, but wait a second. I had, you know, the OpenAI crew at my house recently, and they showed me a new model. Why don’t we ask this new model this question?   LEE: Yeah. BUBECK: And we did, and it solved it on the spot. And that really, honestly, just changed my life. Like, you know, I had been working for a year trying to say that this was impossible. And just right there, it was shown to be possible.   LEE:One of the very first things I got interested in—because I was really thinking a lot about healthcare—was healthcare and medicine.  And I don’t know if the two of you remember, but I ended up doing a lot of tests. I ran through, you know, step one and step two of the US Medical Licensing Exam. Did a whole bunch of other things. I wrote this big report. It was, you know, I can’t remember … a couple hundred pages.   And I needed to share this with someone. I didn’t … there weren’t too many people I could share it with. So I sent, I think, a copy to you, Bill. Sent a copy to you, Seb.   I hardly slept for about a week putting that report together. And, yeah, and I kept working on it. But I was far from alone. I think everyone who was in the tent, so to speak, in those early days was going through something pretty similar. All right. So I think … of course, a lot of what I put in the report also ended up being examples that made it into the book.  But the main purpose of this conversation isn’t to reminisce aboutor indulge in those reminiscences but to talk about what’s happening in healthcare and medicine. And, you know, as I said, we wrote this book. We did it very, very quickly. Seb, you helped. Bill, you know, you provided a review and some endorsements.  But, you know, honestly, we didn’t know what we were talking about because no one had access to this thing. And so we just made a bunch of guesses. So really, the whole thing I wanted to probe with the two of you is, now with two years of experience out in the world, what, you know, what do we think is happening today?  You know, is AI actually having an impact, positive or negative, on healthcare and medicine? And what do we now think is going to happen in the next two years, five years, or 10 years? And so I realize it’s a little bit too abstract to just ask it that way. So let me just try to narrow the discussion and guide us a little bit.   Um, the kind of administrative and clerical work, paperwork, around healthcare—and we made a lot of guesses about that—that appears to be going well, but, you know, Bill, I know we’ve discussed that sometimes that you think there ought to be a lot more going on. Do you have a viewpoint on how AI is actually finding its way into reducing paperwork?  GATES: Well, I’m stunned … I don’t think there should be a patient-doctor meeting where the AI is not sitting in and both transcribing, offering to help with the paperwork, and even making suggestions, although the doctor will be the one, you know, who makes the final decision about the diagnosis and whatever prescription gets done.   It’s so helpful. You know, when that patient goes home and their, you know, son who wants to understand what happened has some questions, that AI should be available to continue that conversation. And the way you can improve that experience and streamline things and, you know, involve the people who advise you. I don’t understand why that’s not more adopted, because there you still have the human in the loop making that final decision.  But even for, like, follow-up calls to make sure the patient did things, to understand if they have concerns and knowing when to escalate back to the doctor, the benefit is incredible. And, you know, that thing is ready for prime time. That paradigm is ready for prime time, in my view.  LEE: Yeah, there are some good products, but it seems like the number one use right now—and we kind of got this from some of the previous guests in previous episodes—is the use of AI just to respond to emails from patients.Does that make sense to you?  BUBECK: Yeah. So maybe I want to second what Bill was saying but maybe take a step back first. You know, two years ago, like, the concept of clinical scribes, which is one of the things that we’re talking about right now, it would have sounded, in fact, it sounded two years ago, borderline dangerous. Because everybody was worried about hallucinations. What happened if you have this AI listening in and then it transcribes, you know, something wrong?  Now, two years later, I think it’s mostly working. And in fact, it is not yet, you know, fully adopted. You’re right. But it is in production. It is used, you know, in many, many places. So this rate of progress is astounding because it wasn’t obvious that we would be able to overcome those obstacles of hallucination. It’s not to say that hallucinations are fully solved. In the case of the closed system, they are.   Now, I think more generally what’s going on in the background is that there is something that we, that certainly I, underestimated, which is this management overhead. So I think the reason why this is not adopted everywhere is really a training and teaching aspect. People need to be taught, like, those systems, how to interact with them.  And one example that I really like, a study that recently appeared where they tried to use ChatGPT for diagnosis and they were comparing doctors without and with ChatGPT. And the amazing thing … so this was a set of cases where the accuracy of the doctors alone was around 75%. ChatGPT alone was 90%. So that’s already kind of mind blowing. But then the kicker is that doctors with ChatGPT was 80%.   Intelligence alone is not enough. It’s also how it’s presented, how you interact with it. And ChatGPT, it’s an amazing tool. Obviously, I absolutely love it. But it’s not … you don’t want a doctor to have to type in, you know, prompts and use it that way.  It should be, as Bill was saying, kind of running continuously in the background, sending you notifications. And you have to be really careful of the rate at which those notifications are being sent. Because if they are too frequent, then the doctor will learn to ignore them. So you have to … all of those things matter, in fact, at least as much as the level of intelligence of the machine.  LEE: One of the things I think about, Bill, in that scenario that you described, doctors do some thinking about the patient when they write the note. So, you know, I’m always a little uncertain whether it’s actually … you know, you wouldn’t necessarily want to fully automate this, I don’t think. Or at least there needs to be some prompt to the doctor to make sure that the doctor puts some thought into what happened in the encounter with the patient. Does that make sense to you at all?  GATES: At this stage, you know, I’d still put the onus on the doctor to write the conclusions and the summary and not delegate that.  The tradeoffs you make a little bit are somewhat dependent on the situation you’re in. If you’re in Africa, So, yes, the doctor’s still going to have to do a lot of work, but just the quality of letting the patient and the people around them interact and ask questions and have things explained, that alone is such a quality improvement. It’s mind blowing.   LEE: So since you mentioned, you know, Africa—and, of course, this touches on the mission and some of the priorities of the Gates Foundation and this idea of democratization of access to expert medical care—what’s the most interesting stuff going on right now? Are there people and organizations or technologies that are impressing you or that you’re tracking?  GATES: Yeah. So the Gates Foundation has given out a lot of grants to people in Africa doing education, agriculture but more healthcare examples than anything. And the way these things start off, they often start out either being patient-centric in a narrow situation, like, OK, I’m a pregnant woman; talk to me. Or, I have infectious disease symptoms; talk to me. Or they’re connected to a health worker where they’re helping that worker get their job done. And we have lots of pilots out, you know, in both of those cases.   The dream would be eventually to have the thing the patient consults be so broad that it’s like having a doctor available who understands the local things.   LEE: Right.   GATES: We’re not there yet. But over the next two or three years, you know, particularly given the worsening financial constraints against African health systems, where the withdrawal of money has been dramatic, you know, figuring out how to take this—what I sometimes call “free intelligence”—and build a quality health system around that, we will have to be more radical in low-income countries than any rich country is ever going to be.   LEE: Also, there’s maybe a different regulatory environment, so some of those things maybe are easier? Because right now, I think the world hasn’t figured out how to and whether to regulate, let’s say, an AI that might give a medical diagnosis or write a prescription for a medication.  BUBECK: Yeah. I think one issue with this, and it’s also slowing down the deployment of AI in healthcare more generally, is a lack of proper benchmark. Because, you know, you were mentioning the USMLE, for example. That’s a great test to test human beings and their knowledge of healthcare and medicine. But it’s not a great test to give to an AI.  It’s not asking the right questions. So finding what are the right questions to test whether an AI system is ready to give diagnosis in a constrained setting, that’s a very, very important direction, which to my surprise, is not yet accelerating at the rate that I was hoping for.  LEE: OK, so that gives me an excuse to get more now into the core AI tech because something I’ve discussed with both of you is this issue of what are the right tests. And you both know the very first test I give to any new spin of an LLM is I present a patient, the results—a mythical patient—the results of my physical exam, my mythical physical exam. Maybe some results of some initial labs. And then I present or propose a differential diagnosis. And if you’re not in medicine, a differential diagnosis you can just think of as a prioritized list of the possible diagnoses that fit with all that data. And in that proposed differential, I always intentionally make two mistakes.  I make a textbook technical error in one of the possible elements of the differential diagnosis, and I have an error of omission. And, you know, I just want to know, does the LLM understand what I’m talking about? And all the good ones out there do now. But then I want to know, can it spot the errors? And then most importantly, is it willing to tell me I’m wrong, that I’ve made a mistake?   That last piece seems really hard for AI today. And so let me ask you first, Seb, because at the time of this taping, of course, there was a new spin of GPT-4o last week that became overly sycophantic. In other words, it was actually prone in that test of mine not only to not tell me I’m wrong, but it actually praised me for the creativity of my differential.What’s up with that?  BUBECK: Yeah, I guess it’s a testament to the fact that training those models is still more of an art than a science. So it’s a difficult job. Just to be clear with the audience, we have rolled back thatversion of GPT-4o, so now we don’t have the sycophant version out there.  Yeah, no, it’s a really difficult question. It has to do … as you said, it’s very technical. It has to do with the post-training and how, like, where do you nudge the model? So, you know, there is this very classical by now technique called RLHF, where you push the model in the direction of a certain reward model. So the reward model is just telling the model, you know, what behavior is good, what behavior is bad.  But this reward model is itself an LLM, and, you know, Bill was saying at the very beginning of the conversation that we don’t really understand how those LLMs deal with concepts like, you know, where is the capital of France located? Things like that. It is the same thing for this reward model. We don’t know why it says that it prefers one output to another, and whether this is correlated with some sycophancy is, you know, something that we discovered basically just now. That if you push too hard in optimization on this reward model, you will get a sycophant model.  So it’s kind of … what I’m trying to say is we became too good at what we were doing, and we ended up, in fact, in a trap of the reward model.  LEE: I mean, you do want … it’s a difficult balance because you do want models to follow your desires and …  BUBECK: It’s a very difficult, very difficult balance.  LEE: So this brings up then the following question for me, which is the extent to which we think we’ll need to have specially trained models for things. So let me start with you, Bill. Do you have a point of view on whether we will need to, you know, quote-unquote take AI models to med school? Have them specially trained? Like, if you were going to deploy something to give medical care in underserved parts of the world, do we need to do something special to create those models?  GATES: We certainly need to teach them the African languages and the unique dialects so that the multimedia interactions are very high quality. We certainly need to teach them the disease prevalence and unique disease patterns like, you know, neglected tropical diseases and malaria. So we need to gather a set of facts that somebody trying to go for a US customer base, you know, wouldn’t necessarily have that in there.  Those two things are actually very straightforward because the additional training time is small. I’d say for the next few years, we’ll also need to do reinforcement learning about the context of being a doctor and how important certain behaviors are. Humans learn over the course of their life to some degree that, I’m in a different context and the way I behave in terms of being willing to criticize or be nice, you know, how important is it? Who’s here? What’s my relationship to them?   Right now, these machines don’t have that broad social experience. And so if you know it’s going to be used for health things, a lot of reinforcement learning of the very best humans in that context would still be valuable. Eventually, the models will, having read all the literature of the world about good doctors, bad doctors, it’ll understand as soon as you say, “I want you to be a doctor diagnosing somebody.” All of the implicit reinforcement that fits that situation, you know, will be there. LEE: Yeah. GATES: And so I hope three years from now, we don’t have to do that reinforcement learning. But today, for any medical context, you would want a lot of data to reinforce tone, willingness to say things when, you know, there might be something significant at stake.  LEE: Yeah. So, you know, something Bill said, kind of, reminds me of another thing that I think we missed, which is, the context also … and the specialization also pertains to different, I guess, what we still call “modes,” although I don’t know if the idea of multimodal is the same as it was two years ago. But, you know, what do you make of all of the hubbub around—in fact, within Microsoft Research, this is a big deal, but I think we’re far from alone—you know, medical images and vision, video, proteins and molecules, cell, you know, cellular data and so on.  BUBECK: Yeah. OK. So there is a lot to say to everything … to the last, you know, couple of minutes. Maybe on the specialization aspect, you know, I think there is, hiding behind this, a really fundamental scientific question of whether eventually we have a singular AGIthat kind of knows everything and you can just put, you know, explain your own context and it will just get it and understand everything.  That’s one vision. I have to say, I don’t particularly believe in this vision. In fact, we humans are not like that at all. I think, hopefully, we are general intelligences, yet we have to specialize a lot. And, you know, I did myself a lot of RL, reinforcement learning, on mathematics. Like, that’s what I did, you know, spent a lot of time doing that. And I didn’t improve on other aspects. You know, in fact, I probably degraded in other aspects.So it’s … I think it’s an important example to have in mind.  LEE: I think I might disagree with you on that, though, because, like, doesn’t a model have to see both good science and bad science in order to be able to gain the ability to discern between the two?  BUBECK: Yeah, no, that absolutely. I think there is value in seeing the generality, in having a very broad base. But then you, kind of, specialize on verticals. And this is where also, you know, open-weights model, which we haven’t talked about yet, are really important because they allow you to provide this broad base to everyone. And then you can specialize on top of it.  LEE: So we have about three hours of stuff to talk about, but our time is actually running low. BUBECK: Yes, yes, yes.   LEE: So I think I want … there’s a more provocative question. It’s almost a silly question, but I need to ask it of the two of you, which is, is there a future, you know, where AI replaces doctors or replaces, you know, medical specialties that we have today? So what does the world look like, say, five years from now?  GATES: Well, it’s important to distinguish healthcare discovery activity from healthcare delivery activity. We focused mostly on delivery. I think it’s very much within the realm of possibility that the AI is not only accelerating healthcare discovery but substituting for a lot of the roles of, you know, I’m an organic chemist, or I run various types of assays. I can see those, which are, you know, testable-output-type jobs but with still very high value, I can see, you know, some replacement in those areas before the doctor.   The doctor, still understanding the human condition and long-term dialogues, you know, they’ve had a lifetime of reinforcement of that, particularly when you get into areas like mental health. So I wouldn’t say in five years, either people will choose to adopt it, but it will be profound that there’ll be this nearly free intelligence that can do follow-up, that can help you, you know, make sure you went through different possibilities.  And so I’d say, yes, we’ll have doctors, but I’d say healthcare will be massively transformed in its quality and in efficiency by AI in that time period.  LEE: Is there a comparison, useful comparison, say, between doctors and, say, programmers, computer programmers, or doctors and, I don’t know, lawyers?  GATES: Programming is another one that has, kind of, a mathematical correctness to it, you know, and so the objective function that you’re trying to reinforce to, as soon as you can understand the state machines, you can have something that’s “checkable”; that’s correct. So I think programming, you know, which is weird to say, that the machine will beat us at most programming tasks before we let it take over roles that have deep empathy, you know, physical presence and social understanding in them.  LEE: Yeah. By the way, you know, I fully expect in five years that AI will produce mathematical proofs that are checkable for validity, easily checkable, because they’ll be written in a proof-checking language like Lean or something but will be so complex that no human mathematician can understand them. I expect that to happen.   I can imagine in some fields, like cellular biology, we could have the same situation in the future because the molecular pathways, the chemistry, biochemistry of human cells or living cells is as complex as any mathematics, and so it seems possible that we may be in a state where in wet lab, we see, Oh yeah, this actually works, but no one can understand why.  BUBECK: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think I really agree with Bill’s distinction of the discovery and the delivery, and indeed, the discovery’s when you can check things, and at the end, there is an artifact that you can verify. You know, you can run the protocol in the wet lab and seeproduced what you wanted. So I absolutely agree with that.   And in fact, you know, we don’t have to talk five years from now. I don’t know if you know, but just recently, there was a paper that was published on a scientific discovery using o3- mini. So this is really amazing. And, you know, just very quickly, just so people know, it was about this statistical physics model, the frustrated Potts model, which has to do with coloring, and basically, the case of three colors, like, more than two colors was open for a long time, and o3 was able to reduce the case of three colors to two colors.   LEE: Yeah.  BUBECK: Which is just, like, astounding. And this is not … this is now. This is happening right now. So this is something that I personally didn’t expect it would happen so quickly, and it’s due to those reasoning models.   Now, on the delivery side, I would add something more to it for the reason why doctors and, in fact, lawyers and coders will remain for a long time, and it’s because we still don’t understand how those models generalize. Like, at the end of the day, we are not able to tell you when they are confronted with a really new, novel situation, whether they will work or not.  Nobody is able to give you that guarantee. And I think until we understand this generalization better, we’re not going to be willing to just let the system in the wild without human supervision.  LEE: But don’t human doctors, human specialists … so, for example, a cardiologist sees a patient in a certain way that a nephrologist …  BUBECK: Yeah. LEE: … or an endocrinologist might not. BUBECK: That’s right. But another cardiologist will understand and, kind of, expect a certain level of generalization from their peer. And this, we just don’t have it with AI models. Now, of course, you’re exactly right. That generalization is also hard for humans. Like, if you have a human trained for one task and you put them into another task, then you don’t … you often don’t know. LEE: OK. You know, the podcast is focused on what’s happened over the last two years. But now, I’d like one provocative prediction about what you think the world of AI and medicine is going to be at some point in the future. You pick your timeframe. I don’t care if it’s two years or 20 years from now, but, you know, what do you think will be different about AI in medicine in that future than today?  BUBECK: Yeah, I think the deployment is going to accelerate soon. Like, we’re really not missing very much. There is this enormous capability overhang. Like, even if progress completely stopped, with current systems, we can do a lot more than what we’re doing right now. So I think this will … this has to be realized, you know, sooner rather than later.  And I think it’s probably dependent on these benchmarks and proper evaluation and tying this with regulation. So these are things that take time in human society and for good reason. But now we already are at two years; you know, give it another two years and it should be really …   LEE: Will AI prescribe your medicines? Write your prescriptions?  BUBECK: I think yes. I think yes.  LEE: OK. Bill?  GATES: Well, I think the next two years, we’ll have massive pilots, and so the amount of use of the AI, still in a copilot-type mode, you know, we should get millions of patient visits, you know, both in general medicine and in the mental health side, as well. And I think that’s going to build up both the data and the confidence to give the AI some additional autonomy. You know, are you going to let it talk to you at night when you’re panicked about your mental health with some ability to escalate? And, you know, I’ve gone so far as to tell politicians with national health systems that if they deploy AI appropriately, that the quality of care, the overload of the doctors, the improvement in the economics will be enough that their voters will be stunned because they just don’t expect this, and, you know, they could be reelectedjust on this one thing of fixing what is a very overloaded and economically challenged health system in these rich countries.  You know, my personal role is going to be to make sure that in the poorer countries, there isn’t some lag; in fact, in many cases, that we’ll be more aggressive because, you know, we’re comparing to having no access to doctors at all. And, you know, so I think whether it’s India or Africa, there’ll be lessons that are globally valuable because we need medical intelligence. And, you know, thank god AI is going to provide a lot of that.  LEE: Well, on that optimistic note, I think that’s a good way to end. Bill, Seb, really appreciate all of this.   I think the most fundamental prediction we made in the book is that AI would actually find its way into the practice of medicine, and I think that that at least has come true, maybe in different ways than we expected, but it’s come true, and I think it’ll only accelerate from here. So thanks again, both of you.   GATES: Yeah. Thanks, you guys.  BUBECK: Thank you, Peter. Thanks, Bill.  LEE: I just always feel such a sense of privilege to have a chance to interact and actually work with people like Bill and Sébastien.    With Bill, I’m always amazed at how practically minded he is. He’s really thinking about the nuts and bolts of what AI might be able to do for people, and his thoughts about underserved parts of the world, the idea that we might actually be able to empower people with access to expert medical knowledge, I think is both inspiring and amazing.   And then, Seb, Sébastien Bubeck, he’s just absolutely a brilliant mind. He has a really firm grip on the deep mathematics of artificial intelligence and brings that to bear in his research and development work. And where that mathematics takes him isn’t just into the nuts and bolts of algorithms but into philosophical questions about the nature of intelligence.   One of the things that Sébastien brought up was the state of evaluation of AI systems. And indeed, he was fairly critical in our conversation. But of course, the world of AI research and development is just moving so fast, and indeed, since we recorded our conversation, OpenAI, in fact, released a new evaluation metric that is directly relevant to medical applications, and that is something called HealthBench. And Microsoft Research also released a new evaluation approach or process called ADeLe.   HealthBench and ADeLe are examples of new approaches to evaluating AI models that are less about testing their knowledge and ability to pass multiple-choice exams and instead are evaluation approaches designed to assess how well AI models are able to complete tasks that actually arise every day in typical healthcare or biomedical research settings. These are examples of really important good work that speak to how well AI models work in the real world of healthcare and biomedical research and how well they can collaborate with human beings in those settings.  You know, I asked Bill and Seb to make some predictions about the future. You know, my own answer, I expect that we’re going to be able to use AI to change how we diagnose patients, change how we decide treatment options.   If you’re a doctor or a nurse and you encounter a patient, you’ll ask questions, do a physical exam, you know, call out for labs just like you do today, but then you’ll be able to engage with AI based on all of that data and just ask, you know, based on all the other people who have gone through the same experience, who have similar data, how were they diagnosed? How were they treated? What were their outcomes? And what does that mean for the patient I have right now? Some people call it the “patients like me” paradigm. And I think that’s going to become real because of AI within our lifetimes. That idea of really grounding the delivery in healthcare and medical practice through data and intelligence, I actually now don’t see any barriers to that future becoming real.   I’d like to extend another big thank you to Bill and Sébastien for their time. And to our listeners, as always, it’s a pleasure to have you along for the ride. I hope you’ll join us for our remaining conversations, as well as a second coauthor roundtable with Carey and Zak.   Until next time.   #how #reshaping #future #healthcare #medical
    WWW.MICROSOFT.COM
    How AI is reshaping the future of healthcare and medical research
    Transcript [MUSIC]      [BOOK PASSAGE]   PETER LEE: “In ‘The Little Black Bag,’ a classic science fiction story, a high-tech doctor’s kit of the future is accidentally transported back to the 1950s, into the shaky hands of a washed-up, alcoholic doctor. The ultimate medical tool, it redeems the doctor wielding it, allowing him to practice gratifyingly heroic medicine. … The tale ends badly for the doctor and his treacherous assistant, but it offered a picture of how advanced technology could transform medicine—powerful when it was written nearly 75 years ago and still so today. What would be the Al equivalent of that little black bag? At this moment when new capabilities are emerging, how do we imagine them into medicine?”   [END OF BOOK PASSAGE]     [THEME MUSIC]     This is The AI Revolution in Medicine, Revisited. I’m your host, Peter Lee.    Shortly after OpenAI’s GPT-4 was publicly released, Carey Goldberg, Dr. Zak Kohane, and I published The AI Revolution in Medicine to help educate the world of healthcare and medical research about the transformative impact this new generative AI technology could have. But because we wrote the book when GPT-4 was still a secret, we had to speculate. Now, two years later, what did we get right, and what did we get wrong?     In this series, we’ll talk to clinicians, patients, hospital administrators, and others to understand the reality of AI in the field and where we go from here.   [THEME MUSIC FADES] The book passage I read at the top is from “Chapter 10: The Big Black Bag.”  In imagining AI in medicine, Carey, Zak, and I included in our book two fictional accounts. In the first, a medical resident consults GPT-4 on her personal phone as the patient in front of her crashes. Within seconds, it offers an alternate response based on recent literature. In the second account, a 90-year-old woman with several chronic conditions is living independently and receiving near-constant medical support from an AI aide.    In our conversations with the guests we’ve spoken to so far, we’ve caught a glimpse of these predicted futures, seeing how clinicians and patients are actually using AI today and how developers are leveraging the technology in the healthcare products and services they’re creating. In fact, that first fictional account isn’t so fictional after all, as most of the doctors in the real world actually appear to be using AI at least occasionally—and sometimes much more than occasionally—to help in their daily clinical work. And as for the second fictional account, which is more of a science fiction account, it seems we are indeed on the verge of a new way of delivering and receiving healthcare, though the future is still very much open.  As we continue to examine the current state of AI in healthcare and its potential to transform the field, I’m pleased to welcome Bill Gates and Sébastien Bubeck.   Bill may be best known as the co-founder of Microsoft, having created the company with his childhood friend Paul Allen in 1975. He’s now the founder of Breakthrough Energy, which aims to advance clean energy innovation, and TerraPower, a company developing groundbreaking nuclear energy and science technologies. He also chairs the world’s largest philanthropic organization, the Gates Foundation, and focuses on solving a variety of health challenges around the globe and here at home.  Sébastien is a research lead at OpenAI. He was previously a distinguished scientist, vice president of AI, and a colleague of mine here at Microsoft, where his work included spearheading the development of the family of small language models known as Phi. While at Microsoft, he also coauthored the discussion-provoking 2023 paper “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence,” which presented the results of early experiments with GPT-4 conducted by a small team from Microsoft Research.    [TRANSITION MUSIC]   Here’s my conversation with Bill Gates and Sébastien Bubeck.  LEE: Bill, welcome.  BILL GATES: Thank you.  LEE: Seb …  SÉBASTIEN BUBECK: Yeah. Hi, hi, Peter. Nice to be here.  LEE: You know, one of the things that I’ve been doing just to get the conversation warmed up is to talk about origin stories, and what I mean about origin stories is, you know, what was the first contact that you had with large language models or the concept of generative AI that convinced you or made you think that something really important was happening?  And so, Bill, I think I’ve heard the story about, you know, the time when the OpenAI folks—Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and others—showed you something, but could we hear from you what those early encounters were like and what was going through your mind?   GATES: Well, I’d been visiting OpenAI soon after it was created to see things like GPT-2 and to see the little arm they had that was trying to match human manipulation and, you know, looking at their games like Dota that they were trying to get as good as human play. And honestly, I didn’t think the language model stuff they were doing, even when they got to GPT-3, would show the ability to learn, you know, in the same sense that a human reads a biology book and is able to take that knowledge and access it not only to pass a test but also to create new medicines.  And so my challenge to them was that if their LLM could get a five on the advanced placement biology test, then I would say, OK, it took biologic knowledge and encoded it in an accessible way and that I didn’t expect them to do that very quickly but it would be profound.   And it was only about six months after I challenged them to do that, that an early version of GPT-4 they brought up to a dinner at my house, and in fact, it answered most of the questions that night very well. The one it got totally wrong, we were … because it was so good, we kept thinking, Oh, we must be wrong. It turned out it was a math weakness [LAUGHTER] that, you know, we later understood that that was an area of, weirdly, of incredible weakness of those early models. But, you know, that was when I realized, OK, the age of cheap intelligence was at its beginning.  LEE: Yeah. So I guess it seems like you had something similar to me in that my first encounters, I actually harbored some skepticism. Is it fair to say you were skeptical before that?  GATES: Well, the idea that we’ve figured out how to encode and access knowledge in this very deep sense without even understanding the nature of the encoding, …  LEE: Right.   GATES: … that is a bit weird.   LEE: Yeah.  GATES: We have an algorithm that creates the computation, but even say, OK, where is the president’s birthday stored in there? Where is this fact stored in there? The fact that even now when we’re playing around, getting a little bit more sense of it, it’s opaque to us what the semantic encoding is, it’s, kind of, amazing to me. I thought the invention of knowledge storage would be an explicit way of encoding knowledge, not an implicit statistical training.  LEE: Yeah, yeah. All right. So, Seb, you know, on this same topic, you know, I got—as we say at Microsoft—I got pulled into the tent. [LAUGHS]  BUBECK: Yes.   LEE: Because this was a very secret project. And then, um, I had the opportunity to select a small number of researchers in MSR [Microsoft Research] to join and start investigating this thing seriously. And the first person I pulled in was you.  BUBECK: Yeah.  LEE: And so what were your first encounters? Because I actually don’t remember what happened then.  BUBECK: Oh, I remember it very well. [LAUGHS] My first encounter with GPT-4 was in a meeting with the two of you, actually. But my kind of first contact, the first moment where I realized that something was happening with generative AI, was before that. And I agree with Bill that I also wasn’t too impressed by GPT-3.  I though that it was kind of, you know, very naturally mimicking the web, sort of parroting what was written there in a nice way. Still in a way which seemed very impressive. But it wasn’t really intelligent in any way. But shortly after GPT-3, there was a model before GPT-4 that really shocked me, and this was the first image generation model, DALL-E 1.  So that was in 2021. And I will forever remember the press release of OpenAI where they had this prompt of an avocado chair and then you had this image of the avocado chair. [LAUGHTER] And what really shocked me is that clearly the model kind of “understood” what is a chair, what is an avocado, and was able to merge those concepts.  So this was really, to me, the first moment where I saw some understanding in those models.   LEE: So this was, just to get the timing right, that was before I pulled you into the tent.  BUBECK: That was before. That was like a year before.  LEE: Right.   BUBECK: And now I will tell you how, you know, we went from that moment to the meeting with the two of you and GPT-4.  So once I saw this kind of understanding, I thought, OK, fine. It understands concept, but it’s still not able to reason. It cannot—as, you know, Bill was saying—it cannot learn from your document. It cannot reason.   So I set out to try to prove that. You know, this is what I was in the business of at the time, trying to prove things in mathematics. So I was trying to prove that basically autoregressive transformers could never reason. So I was trying to prove this. And after a year of work, I had something reasonable to show. And so I had the meeting with the two of you, and I had this example where I wanted to say, there is no way that an LLM is going to be able to do x.  And then as soon as I … I don’t know if you remember, Bill. But as soon as I said that, you said, oh, but wait a second. I had, you know, the OpenAI crew at my house recently, and they showed me a new model. Why don’t we ask this new model this question?   LEE: Yeah. BUBECK: And we did, and it solved it on the spot. And that really, honestly, just changed my life. Like, you know, I had been working for a year trying to say that this was impossible. And just right there, it was shown to be possible.   LEE: [LAUGHS] One of the very first things I got interested in—because I was really thinking a lot about healthcare—was healthcare and medicine.  And I don’t know if the two of you remember, but I ended up doing a lot of tests. I ran through, you know, step one and step two of the US Medical Licensing Exam. Did a whole bunch of other things. I wrote this big report. It was, you know, I can’t remember … a couple hundred pages.   And I needed to share this with someone. I didn’t … there weren’t too many people I could share it with. So I sent, I think, a copy to you, Bill. Sent a copy to you, Seb.   I hardly slept for about a week putting that report together. And, yeah, and I kept working on it. But I was far from alone. I think everyone who was in the tent, so to speak, in those early days was going through something pretty similar. All right. So I think … of course, a lot of what I put in the report also ended up being examples that made it into the book.  But the main purpose of this conversation isn’t to reminisce about [LAUGHS] or indulge in those reminiscences but to talk about what’s happening in healthcare and medicine. And, you know, as I said, we wrote this book. We did it very, very quickly. Seb, you helped. Bill, you know, you provided a review and some endorsements.  But, you know, honestly, we didn’t know what we were talking about because no one had access to this thing. And so we just made a bunch of guesses. So really, the whole thing I wanted to probe with the two of you is, now with two years of experience out in the world, what, you know, what do we think is happening today?  You know, is AI actually having an impact, positive or negative, on healthcare and medicine? And what do we now think is going to happen in the next two years, five years, or 10 years? And so I realize it’s a little bit too abstract to just ask it that way. So let me just try to narrow the discussion and guide us a little bit.   Um, the kind of administrative and clerical work, paperwork, around healthcare—and we made a lot of guesses about that—that appears to be going well, but, you know, Bill, I know we’ve discussed that sometimes that you think there ought to be a lot more going on. Do you have a viewpoint on how AI is actually finding its way into reducing paperwork?  GATES: Well, I’m stunned … I don’t think there should be a patient-doctor meeting where the AI is not sitting in and both transcribing, offering to help with the paperwork, and even making suggestions, although the doctor will be the one, you know, who makes the final decision about the diagnosis and whatever prescription gets done.   It’s so helpful. You know, when that patient goes home and their, you know, son who wants to understand what happened has some questions, that AI should be available to continue that conversation. And the way you can improve that experience and streamline things and, you know, involve the people who advise you. I don’t understand why that’s not more adopted, because there you still have the human in the loop making that final decision.  But even for, like, follow-up calls to make sure the patient did things, to understand if they have concerns and knowing when to escalate back to the doctor, the benefit is incredible. And, you know, that thing is ready for prime time. That paradigm is ready for prime time, in my view.  LEE: Yeah, there are some good products, but it seems like the number one use right now—and we kind of got this from some of the previous guests in previous episodes—is the use of AI just to respond to emails from patients. [LAUGHTER] Does that make sense to you?  BUBECK: Yeah. So maybe I want to second what Bill was saying but maybe take a step back first. You know, two years ago, like, the concept of clinical scribes, which is one of the things that we’re talking about right now, it would have sounded, in fact, it sounded two years ago, borderline dangerous. Because everybody was worried about hallucinations. What happened if you have this AI listening in and then it transcribes, you know, something wrong?  Now, two years later, I think it’s mostly working. And in fact, it is not yet, you know, fully adopted. You’re right. But it is in production. It is used, you know, in many, many places. So this rate of progress is astounding because it wasn’t obvious that we would be able to overcome those obstacles of hallucination. It’s not to say that hallucinations are fully solved. In the case of the closed system, they are.   Now, I think more generally what’s going on in the background is that there is something that we, that certainly I, underestimated, which is this management overhead. So I think the reason why this is not adopted everywhere is really a training and teaching aspect. People need to be taught, like, those systems, how to interact with them.  And one example that I really like, a study that recently appeared where they tried to use ChatGPT for diagnosis and they were comparing doctors without and with ChatGPT (opens in new tab). And the amazing thing … so this was a set of cases where the accuracy of the doctors alone was around 75%. ChatGPT alone was 90%. So that’s already kind of mind blowing. But then the kicker is that doctors with ChatGPT was 80%.   Intelligence alone is not enough. It’s also how it’s presented, how you interact with it. And ChatGPT, it’s an amazing tool. Obviously, I absolutely love it. But it’s not … you don’t want a doctor to have to type in, you know, prompts and use it that way.  It should be, as Bill was saying, kind of running continuously in the background, sending you notifications. And you have to be really careful of the rate at which those notifications are being sent. Because if they are too frequent, then the doctor will learn to ignore them. So you have to … all of those things matter, in fact, at least as much as the level of intelligence of the machine.  LEE: One of the things I think about, Bill, in that scenario that you described, doctors do some thinking about the patient when they write the note. So, you know, I’m always a little uncertain whether it’s actually … you know, you wouldn’t necessarily want to fully automate this, I don’t think. Or at least there needs to be some prompt to the doctor to make sure that the doctor puts some thought into what happened in the encounter with the patient. Does that make sense to you at all?  GATES: At this stage, you know, I’d still put the onus on the doctor to write the conclusions and the summary and not delegate that.  The tradeoffs you make a little bit are somewhat dependent on the situation you’re in. If you’re in Africa, So, yes, the doctor’s still going to have to do a lot of work, but just the quality of letting the patient and the people around them interact and ask questions and have things explained, that alone is such a quality improvement. It’s mind blowing.   LEE: So since you mentioned, you know, Africa—and, of course, this touches on the mission and some of the priorities of the Gates Foundation and this idea of democratization of access to expert medical care—what’s the most interesting stuff going on right now? Are there people and organizations or technologies that are impressing you or that you’re tracking?  GATES: Yeah. So the Gates Foundation has given out a lot of grants to people in Africa doing education, agriculture but more healthcare examples than anything. And the way these things start off, they often start out either being patient-centric in a narrow situation, like, OK, I’m a pregnant woman; talk to me. Or, I have infectious disease symptoms; talk to me. Or they’re connected to a health worker where they’re helping that worker get their job done. And we have lots of pilots out, you know, in both of those cases.   The dream would be eventually to have the thing the patient consults be so broad that it’s like having a doctor available who understands the local things.   LEE: Right.   GATES: We’re not there yet. But over the next two or three years, you know, particularly given the worsening financial constraints against African health systems, where the withdrawal of money has been dramatic, you know, figuring out how to take this—what I sometimes call “free intelligence”—and build a quality health system around that, we will have to be more radical in low-income countries than any rich country is ever going to be.   LEE: Also, there’s maybe a different regulatory environment, so some of those things maybe are easier? Because right now, I think the world hasn’t figured out how to and whether to regulate, let’s say, an AI that might give a medical diagnosis or write a prescription for a medication.  BUBECK: Yeah. I think one issue with this, and it’s also slowing down the deployment of AI in healthcare more generally, is a lack of proper benchmark. Because, you know, you were mentioning the USMLE [United States Medical Licensing Examination], for example. That’s a great test to test human beings and their knowledge of healthcare and medicine. But it’s not a great test to give to an AI.  It’s not asking the right questions. So finding what are the right questions to test whether an AI system is ready to give diagnosis in a constrained setting, that’s a very, very important direction, which to my surprise, is not yet accelerating at the rate that I was hoping for.  LEE: OK, so that gives me an excuse to get more now into the core AI tech because something I’ve discussed with both of you is this issue of what are the right tests. And you both know the very first test I give to any new spin of an LLM is I present a patient, the results—a mythical patient—the results of my physical exam, my mythical physical exam. Maybe some results of some initial labs. And then I present or propose a differential diagnosis. And if you’re not in medicine, a differential diagnosis you can just think of as a prioritized list of the possible diagnoses that fit with all that data. And in that proposed differential, I always intentionally make two mistakes.  I make a textbook technical error in one of the possible elements of the differential diagnosis, and I have an error of omission. And, you know, I just want to know, does the LLM understand what I’m talking about? And all the good ones out there do now. But then I want to know, can it spot the errors? And then most importantly, is it willing to tell me I’m wrong, that I’ve made a mistake?   That last piece seems really hard for AI today. And so let me ask you first, Seb, because at the time of this taping, of course, there was a new spin of GPT-4o last week that became overly sycophantic. In other words, it was actually prone in that test of mine not only to not tell me I’m wrong, but it actually praised me for the creativity of my differential. [LAUGHTER] What’s up with that?  BUBECK: Yeah, I guess it’s a testament to the fact that training those models is still more of an art than a science. So it’s a difficult job. Just to be clear with the audience, we have rolled back that [LAUGHS] version of GPT-4o, so now we don’t have the sycophant version out there.  Yeah, no, it’s a really difficult question. It has to do … as you said, it’s very technical. It has to do with the post-training and how, like, where do you nudge the model? So, you know, there is this very classical by now technique called RLHF [reinforcement learning from human feedback], where you push the model in the direction of a certain reward model. So the reward model is just telling the model, you know, what behavior is good, what behavior is bad.  But this reward model is itself an LLM, and, you know, Bill was saying at the very beginning of the conversation that we don’t really understand how those LLMs deal with concepts like, you know, where is the capital of France located? Things like that. It is the same thing for this reward model. We don’t know why it says that it prefers one output to another, and whether this is correlated with some sycophancy is, you know, something that we discovered basically just now. That if you push too hard in optimization on this reward model, you will get a sycophant model.  So it’s kind of … what I’m trying to say is we became too good at what we were doing, and we ended up, in fact, in a trap of the reward model.  LEE: I mean, you do want … it’s a difficult balance because you do want models to follow your desires and …  BUBECK: It’s a very difficult, very difficult balance.  LEE: So this brings up then the following question for me, which is the extent to which we think we’ll need to have specially trained models for things. So let me start with you, Bill. Do you have a point of view on whether we will need to, you know, quote-unquote take AI models to med school? Have them specially trained? Like, if you were going to deploy something to give medical care in underserved parts of the world, do we need to do something special to create those models?  GATES: We certainly need to teach them the African languages and the unique dialects so that the multimedia interactions are very high quality. We certainly need to teach them the disease prevalence and unique disease patterns like, you know, neglected tropical diseases and malaria. So we need to gather a set of facts that somebody trying to go for a US customer base, you know, wouldn’t necessarily have that in there.  Those two things are actually very straightforward because the additional training time is small. I’d say for the next few years, we’ll also need to do reinforcement learning about the context of being a doctor and how important certain behaviors are. Humans learn over the course of their life to some degree that, I’m in a different context and the way I behave in terms of being willing to criticize or be nice, you know, how important is it? Who’s here? What’s my relationship to them?   Right now, these machines don’t have that broad social experience. And so if you know it’s going to be used for health things, a lot of reinforcement learning of the very best humans in that context would still be valuable. Eventually, the models will, having read all the literature of the world about good doctors, bad doctors, it’ll understand as soon as you say, “I want you to be a doctor diagnosing somebody.” All of the implicit reinforcement that fits that situation, you know, will be there. LEE: Yeah. GATES: And so I hope three years from now, we don’t have to do that reinforcement learning. But today, for any medical context, you would want a lot of data to reinforce tone, willingness to say things when, you know, there might be something significant at stake.  LEE: Yeah. So, you know, something Bill said, kind of, reminds me of another thing that I think we missed, which is, the context also … and the specialization also pertains to different, I guess, what we still call “modes,” although I don’t know if the idea of multimodal is the same as it was two years ago. But, you know, what do you make of all of the hubbub around—in fact, within Microsoft Research, this is a big deal, but I think we’re far from alone—you know, medical images and vision, video, proteins and molecules, cell, you know, cellular data and so on.  BUBECK: Yeah. OK. So there is a lot to say to everything … to the last, you know, couple of minutes. Maybe on the specialization aspect, you know, I think there is, hiding behind this, a really fundamental scientific question of whether eventually we have a singular AGI [artificial general intelligence] that kind of knows everything and you can just put, you know, explain your own context and it will just get it and understand everything.  That’s one vision. I have to say, I don’t particularly believe in this vision. In fact, we humans are not like that at all. I think, hopefully, we are general intelligences, yet we have to specialize a lot. And, you know, I did myself a lot of RL, reinforcement learning, on mathematics. Like, that’s what I did, you know, spent a lot of time doing that. And I didn’t improve on other aspects. You know, in fact, I probably degraded in other aspects. [LAUGHTER] So it’s … I think it’s an important example to have in mind.  LEE: I think I might disagree with you on that, though, because, like, doesn’t a model have to see both good science and bad science in order to be able to gain the ability to discern between the two?  BUBECK: Yeah, no, that absolutely. I think there is value in seeing the generality, in having a very broad base. But then you, kind of, specialize on verticals. And this is where also, you know, open-weights model, which we haven’t talked about yet, are really important because they allow you to provide this broad base to everyone. And then you can specialize on top of it.  LEE: So we have about three hours of stuff to talk about, but our time is actually running low. BUBECK: Yes, yes, yes.   LEE: So I think I want … there’s a more provocative question. It’s almost a silly question, but I need to ask it of the two of you, which is, is there a future, you know, where AI replaces doctors or replaces, you know, medical specialties that we have today? So what does the world look like, say, five years from now?  GATES: Well, it’s important to distinguish healthcare discovery activity from healthcare delivery activity. We focused mostly on delivery. I think it’s very much within the realm of possibility that the AI is not only accelerating healthcare discovery but substituting for a lot of the roles of, you know, I’m an organic chemist, or I run various types of assays. I can see those, which are, you know, testable-output-type jobs but with still very high value, I can see, you know, some replacement in those areas before the doctor.   The doctor, still understanding the human condition and long-term dialogues, you know, they’ve had a lifetime of reinforcement of that, particularly when you get into areas like mental health. So I wouldn’t say in five years, either people will choose to adopt it, but it will be profound that there’ll be this nearly free intelligence that can do follow-up, that can help you, you know, make sure you went through different possibilities.  And so I’d say, yes, we’ll have doctors, but I’d say healthcare will be massively transformed in its quality and in efficiency by AI in that time period.  LEE: Is there a comparison, useful comparison, say, between doctors and, say, programmers, computer programmers, or doctors and, I don’t know, lawyers?  GATES: Programming is another one that has, kind of, a mathematical correctness to it, you know, and so the objective function that you’re trying to reinforce to, as soon as you can understand the state machines, you can have something that’s “checkable”; that’s correct. So I think programming, you know, which is weird to say, that the machine will beat us at most programming tasks before we let it take over roles that have deep empathy, you know, physical presence and social understanding in them.  LEE: Yeah. By the way, you know, I fully expect in five years that AI will produce mathematical proofs that are checkable for validity, easily checkable, because they’ll be written in a proof-checking language like Lean or something but will be so complex that no human mathematician can understand them. I expect that to happen.   I can imagine in some fields, like cellular biology, we could have the same situation in the future because the molecular pathways, the chemistry, biochemistry of human cells or living cells is as complex as any mathematics, and so it seems possible that we may be in a state where in wet lab, we see, Oh yeah, this actually works, but no one can understand why.  BUBECK: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think I really agree with Bill’s distinction of the discovery and the delivery, and indeed, the discovery’s when you can check things, and at the end, there is an artifact that you can verify. You know, you can run the protocol in the wet lab and see [if you have] produced what you wanted. So I absolutely agree with that.   And in fact, you know, we don’t have to talk five years from now. I don’t know if you know, but just recently, there was a paper that was published on a scientific discovery using o3- mini (opens in new tab). So this is really amazing. And, you know, just very quickly, just so people know, it was about this statistical physics model, the frustrated Potts model, which has to do with coloring, and basically, the case of three colors, like, more than two colors was open for a long time, and o3 was able to reduce the case of three colors to two colors.   LEE: Yeah.  BUBECK: Which is just, like, astounding. And this is not … this is now. This is happening right now. So this is something that I personally didn’t expect it would happen so quickly, and it’s due to those reasoning models.   Now, on the delivery side, I would add something more to it for the reason why doctors and, in fact, lawyers and coders will remain for a long time, and it’s because we still don’t understand how those models generalize. Like, at the end of the day, we are not able to tell you when they are confronted with a really new, novel situation, whether they will work or not.  Nobody is able to give you that guarantee. And I think until we understand this generalization better, we’re not going to be willing to just let the system in the wild without human supervision.  LEE: But don’t human doctors, human specialists … so, for example, a cardiologist sees a patient in a certain way that a nephrologist …  BUBECK: Yeah. LEE: … or an endocrinologist might not. BUBECK: That’s right. But another cardiologist will understand and, kind of, expect a certain level of generalization from their peer. And this, we just don’t have it with AI models. Now, of course, you’re exactly right. That generalization is also hard for humans. Like, if you have a human trained for one task and you put them into another task, then you don’t … you often don’t know. LEE: OK. You know, the podcast is focused on what’s happened over the last two years. But now, I’d like one provocative prediction about what you think the world of AI and medicine is going to be at some point in the future. You pick your timeframe. I don’t care if it’s two years or 20 years from now, but, you know, what do you think will be different about AI in medicine in that future than today?  BUBECK: Yeah, I think the deployment is going to accelerate soon. Like, we’re really not missing very much. There is this enormous capability overhang. Like, even if progress completely stopped, with current systems, we can do a lot more than what we’re doing right now. So I think this will … this has to be realized, you know, sooner rather than later.  And I think it’s probably dependent on these benchmarks and proper evaluation and tying this with regulation. So these are things that take time in human society and for good reason. But now we already are at two years; you know, give it another two years and it should be really …   LEE: Will AI prescribe your medicines? Write your prescriptions?  BUBECK: I think yes. I think yes.  LEE: OK. Bill?  GATES: Well, I think the next two years, we’ll have massive pilots, and so the amount of use of the AI, still in a copilot-type mode, you know, we should get millions of patient visits, you know, both in general medicine and in the mental health side, as well. And I think that’s going to build up both the data and the confidence to give the AI some additional autonomy. You know, are you going to let it talk to you at night when you’re panicked about your mental health with some ability to escalate? And, you know, I’ve gone so far as to tell politicians with national health systems that if they deploy AI appropriately, that the quality of care, the overload of the doctors, the improvement in the economics will be enough that their voters will be stunned because they just don’t expect this, and, you know, they could be reelected [LAUGHTER] just on this one thing of fixing what is a very overloaded and economically challenged health system in these rich countries.  You know, my personal role is going to be to make sure that in the poorer countries, there isn’t some lag; in fact, in many cases, that we’ll be more aggressive because, you know, we’re comparing to having no access to doctors at all. And, you know, so I think whether it’s India or Africa, there’ll be lessons that are globally valuable because we need medical intelligence. And, you know, thank god AI is going to provide a lot of that.  LEE: Well, on that optimistic note, I think that’s a good way to end. Bill, Seb, really appreciate all of this.   I think the most fundamental prediction we made in the book is that AI would actually find its way into the practice of medicine, and I think that that at least has come true, maybe in different ways than we expected, but it’s come true, and I think it’ll only accelerate from here. So thanks again, both of you.  [TRANSITION MUSIC]  GATES: Yeah. Thanks, you guys.  BUBECK: Thank you, Peter. Thanks, Bill.  LEE: I just always feel such a sense of privilege to have a chance to interact and actually work with people like Bill and Sébastien.    With Bill, I’m always amazed at how practically minded he is. He’s really thinking about the nuts and bolts of what AI might be able to do for people, and his thoughts about underserved parts of the world, the idea that we might actually be able to empower people with access to expert medical knowledge, I think is both inspiring and amazing.   And then, Seb, Sébastien Bubeck, he’s just absolutely a brilliant mind. He has a really firm grip on the deep mathematics of artificial intelligence and brings that to bear in his research and development work. And where that mathematics takes him isn’t just into the nuts and bolts of algorithms but into philosophical questions about the nature of intelligence.   One of the things that Sébastien brought up was the state of evaluation of AI systems. And indeed, he was fairly critical in our conversation. But of course, the world of AI research and development is just moving so fast, and indeed, since we recorded our conversation, OpenAI, in fact, released a new evaluation metric that is directly relevant to medical applications, and that is something called HealthBench. And Microsoft Research also released a new evaluation approach or process called ADeLe.   HealthBench and ADeLe are examples of new approaches to evaluating AI models that are less about testing their knowledge and ability to pass multiple-choice exams and instead are evaluation approaches designed to assess how well AI models are able to complete tasks that actually arise every day in typical healthcare or biomedical research settings. These are examples of really important good work that speak to how well AI models work in the real world of healthcare and biomedical research and how well they can collaborate with human beings in those settings.  You know, I asked Bill and Seb to make some predictions about the future. You know, my own answer, I expect that we’re going to be able to use AI to change how we diagnose patients, change how we decide treatment options.   If you’re a doctor or a nurse and you encounter a patient, you’ll ask questions, do a physical exam, you know, call out for labs just like you do today, but then you’ll be able to engage with AI based on all of that data and just ask, you know, based on all the other people who have gone through the same experience, who have similar data, how were they diagnosed? How were they treated? What were their outcomes? And what does that mean for the patient I have right now? Some people call it the “patients like me” paradigm. And I think that’s going to become real because of AI within our lifetimes. That idea of really grounding the delivery in healthcare and medical practice through data and intelligence, I actually now don’t see any barriers to that future becoming real.  [THEME MUSIC]  I’d like to extend another big thank you to Bill and Sébastien for their time. And to our listeners, as always, it’s a pleasure to have you along for the ride. I hope you’ll join us for our remaining conversations, as well as a second coauthor roundtable with Carey and Zak.   Until next time.   [MUSIC FADES]
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились
  • MindsEye review – a dystopian future that plays like it’s from 2012

    There’s a Sphere-alike in Redrock, MindsEye’s open-world version of Las Vegas. It’s pretty much a straight copy of the original: a huge soap bubble, half sunk into the desert floor, with its surface turned into a gigantic TV. Occasionally you’ll pull up near the Sphere while driving an electric vehicle made by Silva, the megacorp that controls this world. You’ll sometimes come to a stop just as an advert for an identical Silva EV plays out on the huge curved screen overhead. The doubling effect can be slightly vertigo-inducing.At these moments, I truly get what MindsEye is trying to do. You’re stuck in the ultimate company town, where oligarchs and other crooks run everything, and there’s no hope of escaping the ecosystem they’ve built. MindsEye gets this all across through a chance encounter, and in a way that’s both light of touch and clever. The rest of the game tends towards the heavy-handed and silly, but it’s nice to glimpse a few instances where everything clicks.With its Spheres and omnipresent EVs, MindsEye looks and sounds like the future. It’s concerned with AI and tech bros and the insidious creep of a corporate dystopia. You play as an amnesiac former-soldier who must work out the precise damage that technology has done to his humanity, while shooting people and robots and drones. And alongside the campaign itself, MindsEye also has a suite of tools for making your own game or levels and publishing them for fellow players. All of this has come from a studio founded by Leslie Benzies, whose production credits include the likes of GTA 5.AI overlords … MindsEye. Photograph: IOI PartnersWhat’s weird, then, is that MindsEye generally plays like the past. Put a finger to the air and the wind is blowing from somewhere around 2012. At heart, this is a roughly hewn cover shooter with an open world that you only really experience when you’re driving between missions. Its topical concerns mainly exist to justify double-crosses and car chases and shootouts, and to explain why you head into battle with a personal drone that can open doors for you and stun nearby enemies.It can be an uncanny experience, drifting back through the years to a time when many third-person games still featured unskippable cut-scenes and cover that could be awkward to unstick yourself from. I should add that there are plenty of reports at the moment of crashes and technical glitches and characters turning up without their faces in place. Playing on a relatively old PC, aside from one crash and a few amusing bugs, I’ve been mostly fine. I’ve just been playing a game that feels equally elderly.This is sometimes less of a criticism than it sounds. There is a definite pleasure to be had in simple run-and-gun missions where you shoot very similar looking people over and over again and pick a path between waypoints. The shooting often feels good, and while it’s a bit of a swizz to have to drive to and from each mission, the cars have a nice fishtaily looseness to them that can, at times, invoke the Valium-tinged glory of the Driver games.Driving between missions … MindsEye. Photograph: Build A Rocket Boy/IOI PartnersAnd for a game that has thought a lot about the point at which AI takes over, the in-game AI around me wasn’t in danger of taking over anything. When I handed over control of my car to the game while tailing an enemy, having been told I should try not to be spotted, the game made sure our bumpers kissed at every intersection. The streets of this particular open world are filled with amusingly unskilled AI drivers. I’d frequently arrive at traffic lights to be greeted by a recent pile-up, so delighted by the off-screen collisions that had scattered road cones and Dumpsters across my path that I almost always stopped to investigate.I even enjoyed the plot’s hokeyness, which features lines such as: “Your DNA has been altered since we last met!” Has it, though? Even so, I became increasingly aware that clever people had spent a good chunk of their working lives making this game. I don’t think they intended to cast me as what is in essence a Deliveroo bullet courier for an off-brand Elon Musk. Or to drop me into an open world that feels thin not because it lacks mission icons and fishing mini-games, but because it’s devoid of convincing human detail.I suspect the problem may actually be a thematically resonant one: a reckless kind of ambition. When I dropped into the level editor I found a tool that’s astonishingly rich and complex, but which also requires a lot of time and effort if you want to make anything really special in it. This is for the mega-fans, surely, the point-one percent. It must have taken serious time to build, and to do all that alongside a campaignis the kind of endeavour that requires a real megacorp behind it.MindsEye is an oddity. For all its failings, I rarely disliked playing it, and yet it’s also difficult to sincerely recommend. Its ideas, its moment-to-moment action and narrative are so thinly conceived that it barely exists. And yet: I’m kind of happy that it does.

    MindsEye is out now; £54.99
    #mindseye #review #dystopian #future #that
    MindsEye review – a dystopian future that plays like it’s from 2012
    There’s a Sphere-alike in Redrock, MindsEye’s open-world version of Las Vegas. It’s pretty much a straight copy of the original: a huge soap bubble, half sunk into the desert floor, with its surface turned into a gigantic TV. Occasionally you’ll pull up near the Sphere while driving an electric vehicle made by Silva, the megacorp that controls this world. You’ll sometimes come to a stop just as an advert for an identical Silva EV plays out on the huge curved screen overhead. The doubling effect can be slightly vertigo-inducing.At these moments, I truly get what MindsEye is trying to do. You’re stuck in the ultimate company town, where oligarchs and other crooks run everything, and there’s no hope of escaping the ecosystem they’ve built. MindsEye gets this all across through a chance encounter, and in a way that’s both light of touch and clever. The rest of the game tends towards the heavy-handed and silly, but it’s nice to glimpse a few instances where everything clicks.With its Spheres and omnipresent EVs, MindsEye looks and sounds like the future. It’s concerned with AI and tech bros and the insidious creep of a corporate dystopia. You play as an amnesiac former-soldier who must work out the precise damage that technology has done to his humanity, while shooting people and robots and drones. And alongside the campaign itself, MindsEye also has a suite of tools for making your own game or levels and publishing them for fellow players. All of this has come from a studio founded by Leslie Benzies, whose production credits include the likes of GTA 5.AI overlords … MindsEye. Photograph: IOI PartnersWhat’s weird, then, is that MindsEye generally plays like the past. Put a finger to the air and the wind is blowing from somewhere around 2012. At heart, this is a roughly hewn cover shooter with an open world that you only really experience when you’re driving between missions. Its topical concerns mainly exist to justify double-crosses and car chases and shootouts, and to explain why you head into battle with a personal drone that can open doors for you and stun nearby enemies.It can be an uncanny experience, drifting back through the years to a time when many third-person games still featured unskippable cut-scenes and cover that could be awkward to unstick yourself from. I should add that there are plenty of reports at the moment of crashes and technical glitches and characters turning up without their faces in place. Playing on a relatively old PC, aside from one crash and a few amusing bugs, I’ve been mostly fine. I’ve just been playing a game that feels equally elderly.This is sometimes less of a criticism than it sounds. There is a definite pleasure to be had in simple run-and-gun missions where you shoot very similar looking people over and over again and pick a path between waypoints. The shooting often feels good, and while it’s a bit of a swizz to have to drive to and from each mission, the cars have a nice fishtaily looseness to them that can, at times, invoke the Valium-tinged glory of the Driver games.Driving between missions … MindsEye. Photograph: Build A Rocket Boy/IOI PartnersAnd for a game that has thought a lot about the point at which AI takes over, the in-game AI around me wasn’t in danger of taking over anything. When I handed over control of my car to the game while tailing an enemy, having been told I should try not to be spotted, the game made sure our bumpers kissed at every intersection. The streets of this particular open world are filled with amusingly unskilled AI drivers. I’d frequently arrive at traffic lights to be greeted by a recent pile-up, so delighted by the off-screen collisions that had scattered road cones and Dumpsters across my path that I almost always stopped to investigate.I even enjoyed the plot’s hokeyness, which features lines such as: “Your DNA has been altered since we last met!” Has it, though? Even so, I became increasingly aware that clever people had spent a good chunk of their working lives making this game. I don’t think they intended to cast me as what is in essence a Deliveroo bullet courier for an off-brand Elon Musk. Or to drop me into an open world that feels thin not because it lacks mission icons and fishing mini-games, but because it’s devoid of convincing human detail.I suspect the problem may actually be a thematically resonant one: a reckless kind of ambition. When I dropped into the level editor I found a tool that’s astonishingly rich and complex, but which also requires a lot of time and effort if you want to make anything really special in it. This is for the mega-fans, surely, the point-one percent. It must have taken serious time to build, and to do all that alongside a campaignis the kind of endeavour that requires a real megacorp behind it.MindsEye is an oddity. For all its failings, I rarely disliked playing it, and yet it’s also difficult to sincerely recommend. Its ideas, its moment-to-moment action and narrative are so thinly conceived that it barely exists. And yet: I’m kind of happy that it does. MindsEye is out now; £54.99 #mindseye #review #dystopian #future #that
    WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM
    MindsEye review – a dystopian future that plays like it’s from 2012
    There’s a Sphere-alike in Redrock, MindsEye’s open-world version of Las Vegas. It’s pretty much a straight copy of the original: a huge soap bubble, half sunk into the desert floor, with its surface turned into a gigantic TV. Occasionally you’ll pull up near the Sphere while driving an electric vehicle made by Silva, the megacorp that controls this world. You’ll sometimes come to a stop just as an advert for an identical Silva EV plays out on the huge curved screen overhead. The doubling effect can be slightly vertigo-inducing.At these moments, I truly get what MindsEye is trying to do. You’re stuck in the ultimate company town, where oligarchs and other crooks run everything, and there’s no hope of escaping the ecosystem they’ve built. MindsEye gets this all across through a chance encounter, and in a way that’s both light of touch and clever. The rest of the game tends towards the heavy-handed and silly, but it’s nice to glimpse a few instances where everything clicks.With its Spheres and omnipresent EVs, MindsEye looks and sounds like the future. It’s concerned with AI and tech bros and the insidious creep of a corporate dystopia. You play as an amnesiac former-soldier who must work out the precise damage that technology has done to his humanity, while shooting people and robots and drones. And alongside the campaign itself, MindsEye also has a suite of tools for making your own game or levels and publishing them for fellow players. All of this has come from a studio founded by Leslie Benzies, whose production credits include the likes of GTA 5.AI overlords … MindsEye. Photograph: IOI PartnersWhat’s weird, then, is that MindsEye generally plays like the past. Put a finger to the air and the wind is blowing from somewhere around 2012. At heart, this is a roughly hewn cover shooter with an open world that you only really experience when you’re driving between missions. Its topical concerns mainly exist to justify double-crosses and car chases and shootouts, and to explain why you head into battle with a personal drone that can open doors for you and stun nearby enemies.It can be an uncanny experience, drifting back through the years to a time when many third-person games still featured unskippable cut-scenes and cover that could be awkward to unstick yourself from. I should add that there are plenty of reports at the moment of crashes and technical glitches and characters turning up without their faces in place. Playing on a relatively old PC, aside from one crash and a few amusing bugs, I’ve been mostly fine. I’ve just been playing a game that feels equally elderly.This is sometimes less of a criticism than it sounds. There is a definite pleasure to be had in simple run-and-gun missions where you shoot very similar looking people over and over again and pick a path between waypoints. The shooting often feels good, and while it’s a bit of a swizz to have to drive to and from each mission, the cars have a nice fishtaily looseness to them that can, at times, invoke the Valium-tinged glory of the Driver games. (The airborne craft are less fun because they have less character.)Driving between missions … MindsEye. Photograph: Build A Rocket Boy/IOI PartnersAnd for a game that has thought a lot about the point at which AI takes over, the in-game AI around me wasn’t in danger of taking over anything. When I handed over control of my car to the game while tailing an enemy, having been told I should try not to be spotted, the game made sure our bumpers kissed at every intersection. The streets of this particular open world are filled with amusingly unskilled AI drivers. I’d frequently arrive at traffic lights to be greeted by a recent pile-up, so delighted by the off-screen collisions that had scattered road cones and Dumpsters across my path that I almost always stopped to investigate.I even enjoyed the plot’s hokeyness, which features lines such as: “Your DNA has been altered since we last met!” Has it, though? Even so, I became increasingly aware that clever people had spent a good chunk of their working lives making this game. I don’t think they intended to cast me as what is in essence a Deliveroo bullet courier for an off-brand Elon Musk. Or to drop me into an open world that feels thin not because it lacks mission icons and fishing mini-games, but because it’s devoid of convincing human detail.I suspect the problem may actually be a thematically resonant one: a reckless kind of ambition. When I dropped into the level editor I found a tool that’s astonishingly rich and complex, but which also requires a lot of time and effort if you want to make anything really special in it. This is for the mega-fans, surely, the point-one percent. It must have taken serious time to build, and to do all that alongside a campaign (one that tries, at least, to vary things now and then with stealth, trailing and sniper sections) is the kind of endeavour that requires a real megacorp behind it.MindsEye is an oddity. For all its failings, I rarely disliked playing it, and yet it’s also difficult to sincerely recommend. Its ideas, its moment-to-moment action and narrative are so thinly conceived that it barely exists. And yet: I’m kind of happy that it does. MindsEye is out now; £54.99
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились
  • The 17 Best Barstools and Counter Stools

    Bar stools aren't intended for hours of lounging. What they are intended for, however, is constant use. Because what’s a bar if not a counter by another name? And a counter, in many cases, is also a breakfast table, the after-school snack buffet, the take-out and basketball-watching hub, and, eventually, the cocktail bar, come hosting hour. For each activity, the same seat does its duty. Unlike dining room chairs, bar stools suffer thoughtlessness: We yank them out, half asleep in the morning. We hike our feet up their pegs, lost in a TV show's plot. When friends come over, we lean forward, animatedly. All the while unwittingly testing each little joint and bolt beneath us. That’s why shopping for them requires a good deal of thought. So, we went ahead and did a lot of that thinking for you. Below, you’ll find some of ELLE Decor's favorite stools, from the design-forward to the budget-conscious. You'll also find a little about what went into our choices. The ClassicCarter Counter Stoolat Serena and LilyThere's a lot to be said for a classic. With this elevated chair-like stool, you can rest against the back and bring your feet up to its pegs. Also, it comes in six colorways.Dimensions37"H x 18.25" W x 21" DFeaturesSolid beech, painted finish. No assembly required. Holds up to 275 lbsThe Vacationer Avalon Rattan Swivel Bar Stoolat Serena and Lily If there's a material evocative of vacation, it's rattan. This version also has a swivel seat and basket-weave back. But, you'll have to appreciate the natural wear on a material—it's part of the appeal. Dimensions38.5"H x 20.5"W x 22"DFeaturesMade with hand-wrapped rattan, holds up to 300 lbsAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowLaurel Foundry Modern Farmhouse® Baggett Solid Wood Windsor Back StoolNow 15% Offat WayfairIf you like the look of light wood but at an affordable pricepoint, this option from Wayfair is totally serviceable. And, it comes in three classic colorways. Dimensions14.8'' W X 14.2'' D; back is 12.5'' HFeaturesWood frame, some assembly required; holds up to 300 lbsMartha Stewart Martha Stewart Playa Handcrafted Rattan Counter StoolNow 36% Offat WayfairTDimensions35'' H x 23'' W x 22.5'' DFeaturessolid wood; some assembly required. Holds up to 300 lbsAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowElegant designVanity Counter Stoolat nickeykehoe.comAnd what if you want the back, the cushioned seat, and a considered, elevated design? Time to check on Nickey Kehoe. Says our own Interiors Director, Bebe Howorth: “I love a stool with a little bit of back support, but doesn’t impose on the space like a chair.” Dimensions33.25" H x 18" W x 19.5" DFeaturesNatural oak; Susan Deliss, constanza in denimBarely-there backrestSede Counter Stool at ArticleA short back, a cushioned seat, and an elegant, tapered leg, this stool has a lovely silhouette at a low price point. Available in three colorways and the option of a leatherseat. Dimensions31"H x 16"W x 17"DFeaturesSolid and veneered wood, holds up to 300 lbsAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowWayne Swivel Bar & Counter Stoolsat West ElmThere's no denying the appeal of the swivel. And if you foresee your bar stools serving a primarily social function, you'll want to seek that out. As Dorothy Scarborough, Editorial Assistant at ELLE Decor and Town & Country says: "Bar stools, by their very design, are tricky. When you're a few martinis in, it's fun to swing your legs and turn in circles, but when you're trying to enjoy a bowl of cereal, bar stools make for a less than ideal experience. This West Elm design has a higher back and arms, and at only 26 inches off the ground, doesn't make you feel like you're sitting on a tower. It's almost like a real chair, but it has all the jazzy chicness of a barstool."Adam Stoolat framacph.comOf course, not all stools need to be tall chairs. The perch-type stool can serve its function expertly, even with a minimal design, like this one from Frama. Dimension30" H x 17" W x 10" DFeaturesPowder coated frame, oiled seat; steel frame, oak seatAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowErgonomic PerchWayland stool at oandgstudio.comPrepare for a comfortable perch with this statuesque stool from O&G Studio. Says ELLE Decor's Market Director, Benjamin Reynaert: "I personally sit-tested the Wayland Stool, and let me tell you—the carved solid wood seat isn’t just a design detail, it’s a comfort revelation, perfectly pairing form with the casual functionality of its bamboo-inspired turnings and classic box stretcher base, all available in a palette of 19 hand-applied stained finishes that highlight the American craftsmanship of O&G Studio."Dimensions25" H x 21.25" W x 18" DFeaturesMade with ash and maple wood, stained; "stylized bamboo turnings of the Wayland Family."Industrial chicSteel Stoolat ZARA HomeFrom Zara Home comes this sharp number. Not as tall as some, and, clearly, not intended for hours of sitting, this steel stool brings a chic taste of the industrial to any room. Dimensions17" H x 11" W x 11" DAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowWinsome Winsome Satori Stoolat AmazonWith a curved wooden seat and a classic, ladder-leg construction, this Winsome Satori stool is chic, simple, and affordable. Bonus: It's available in multiple heights.Dimensions16" H x 18" W x 29" DFeaturesSolid beech wood with a walnut finishLancaster Stool at webstaurantstore.comIndustrial but make it comfortable: The Lancaster stool comes in multiple colors and heights. Plus: the cushion is removable, making these stools stackable for easy storage. Dimensions24" H x 16 " D x 16" WFeaturesFrame is coated steel, and the cushion is corrosion-resistant powder coated vinyl. Holds up to 400 lbsAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowCurvy and Cushy Lulu and Georgia Ashford Bar Stoolat Lulu and GeorgiaThis curvy stool from Lulu and Georgia comes with the brusque silhouette of its industrial cousins tempered by the soft edges, arched lines, and plush seat of a comfortable chair.Dimensions30" H x 18.25" W x 18.25" DFeaturesAsh wood frame, foam cushion; hand-crafted and made from sustainable materialsThe Heavy-Lifting VacationerAlastair Bar & Counter StoolNow 37% Offat Joss & MainA return to the vacation rattan, this classic, backless stool comes with all the attitude of a beach cabana at a reasonable price. Offered in multiple colors and heights for beach-adjacent rooms of all sorts. Surprisingly, perhaps, this stool claims to hold up to 500 lbs, making it the heaviest lifter of them all. Dimensinos24'' H X 16'' W X 16'' DFeaturesMade from rattan and plastic, it can hold up to 500 lbsAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowInnovative eleganceMoon Stoolat sunatsix.comIt's all about the considered design on these moon stools. But, made from solid white oak treated with tenna oil, they're also stain resistant and built for use. Dimensions30” H x 19.5” W x 16”DFeatureshand-made from white oak using traditional joinery; three finishes availableHigh-quality classic Range Stoolat assemblyline.coThese classic stools are solid wood, handmade, and all about the understated beauty of quality. Which also means you'll need to order these well in advance of your first soiree, as they take roughly 12 to 14 weeks to make. Dimensions25” H x 13” L x 13” WFeaturesMade from white oak; multiple finishes available.Advertisement - Continue Reading BelowMainstays Natural wood stoolat WalmartYes, Walmart makes a totally serviceable, classic wooden bar stool. Sold in packs of two, and available in multiple heights, they get the job done. Dimensions13.50" H x 29.00" D x 13.50" WFeaturesMade from woodFrequently Asked QuestionsWhat makes a bar stool comfortable? Let's be honest: Most stools are not built for comfort. Especially the perch variety, as we're calling it—stools with just a flat shelf or round disk to sit on—are functional. If comfort is high on the must-have list, look for a perch with a slightly concave seat, engineered for the shape of a human body. Or skip the perch and go for stools with backrests and cushions. Here's a rule of thumb: the thicker the cushion, the higher the back, the longer you'll want to sit. Ideally, however, you'll find a showroom to test out any piece you're looking to invest in. How do you clean a stool? Most of the stools we've listed have specific instructions for cleaning, but non-abrasive cleaners are always recommended. And, most if not all of the stools we've chosen are intended for indoor use only. Even indoors, however, keeping your stools out of direct sunlight will help preserve the finish. Advertisement - Continue Reading BelowWhy Trust Us?For more than three decades, ELLE DECOR has covered stylemakers, trendsetting interiors, and must-have home furnishings. With a focus on the latest design trends and ideas about how to incorporate them into improving your own space, we’re your go-to resource for elevating and beautifying your home. Our team of editors and interior design pros research and review every new article we publish to ensure you have the most up-to-date, expert-approved information.
    #best #barstools #counter #stools
    The 17 Best Barstools and Counter Stools
    Bar stools aren't intended for hours of lounging. What they are intended for, however, is constant use. Because what’s a bar if not a counter by another name? And a counter, in many cases, is also a breakfast table, the after-school snack buffet, the take-out and basketball-watching hub, and, eventually, the cocktail bar, come hosting hour. For each activity, the same seat does its duty. Unlike dining room chairs, bar stools suffer thoughtlessness: We yank them out, half asleep in the morning. We hike our feet up their pegs, lost in a TV show's plot. When friends come over, we lean forward, animatedly. All the while unwittingly testing each little joint and bolt beneath us. That’s why shopping for them requires a good deal of thought. So, we went ahead and did a lot of that thinking for you. Below, you’ll find some of ELLE Decor's favorite stools, from the design-forward to the budget-conscious. You'll also find a little about what went into our choices. The ClassicCarter Counter Stoolat Serena and LilyThere's a lot to be said for a classic. With this elevated chair-like stool, you can rest against the back and bring your feet up to its pegs. Also, it comes in six colorways.Dimensions37"H x 18.25" W x 21" DFeaturesSolid beech, painted finish. No assembly required. Holds up to 275 lbsThe Vacationer Avalon Rattan Swivel Bar Stoolat Serena and Lily If there's a material evocative of vacation, it's rattan. This version also has a swivel seat and basket-weave back. But, you'll have to appreciate the natural wear on a material—it's part of the appeal. Dimensions38.5"H x 20.5"W x 22"DFeaturesMade with hand-wrapped rattan, holds up to 300 lbsAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowLaurel Foundry Modern Farmhouse® Baggett Solid Wood Windsor Back StoolNow 15% Offat WayfairIf you like the look of light wood but at an affordable pricepoint, this option from Wayfair is totally serviceable. And, it comes in three classic colorways. Dimensions14.8'' W X 14.2'' D; back is 12.5'' HFeaturesWood frame, some assembly required; holds up to 300 lbsMartha Stewart Martha Stewart Playa Handcrafted Rattan Counter StoolNow 36% Offat WayfairTDimensions35'' H x 23'' W x 22.5'' DFeaturessolid wood; some assembly required. Holds up to 300 lbsAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowElegant designVanity Counter Stoolat nickeykehoe.comAnd what if you want the back, the cushioned seat, and a considered, elevated design? Time to check on Nickey Kehoe. Says our own Interiors Director, Bebe Howorth: “I love a stool with a little bit of back support, but doesn’t impose on the space like a chair.” Dimensions33.25" H x 18" W x 19.5" DFeaturesNatural oak; Susan Deliss, constanza in denimBarely-there backrestSede Counter Stool at ArticleA short back, a cushioned seat, and an elegant, tapered leg, this stool has a lovely silhouette at a low price point. Available in three colorways and the option of a leatherseat. Dimensions31"H x 16"W x 17"DFeaturesSolid and veneered wood, holds up to 300 lbsAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowWayne Swivel Bar & Counter Stoolsat West ElmThere's no denying the appeal of the swivel. And if you foresee your bar stools serving a primarily social function, you'll want to seek that out. As Dorothy Scarborough, Editorial Assistant at ELLE Decor and Town & Country says: "Bar stools, by their very design, are tricky. When you're a few martinis in, it's fun to swing your legs and turn in circles, but when you're trying to enjoy a bowl of cereal, bar stools make for a less than ideal experience. This West Elm design has a higher back and arms, and at only 26 inches off the ground, doesn't make you feel like you're sitting on a tower. It's almost like a real chair, but it has all the jazzy chicness of a barstool."Adam Stoolat framacph.comOf course, not all stools need to be tall chairs. The perch-type stool can serve its function expertly, even with a minimal design, like this one from Frama. Dimension30" H x 17" W x 10" DFeaturesPowder coated frame, oiled seat; steel frame, oak seatAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowErgonomic PerchWayland stool at oandgstudio.comPrepare for a comfortable perch with this statuesque stool from O&G Studio. Says ELLE Decor's Market Director, Benjamin Reynaert: "I personally sit-tested the Wayland Stool, and let me tell you—the carved solid wood seat isn’t just a design detail, it’s a comfort revelation, perfectly pairing form with the casual functionality of its bamboo-inspired turnings and classic box stretcher base, all available in a palette of 19 hand-applied stained finishes that highlight the American craftsmanship of O&G Studio."Dimensions25" H x 21.25" W x 18" DFeaturesMade with ash and maple wood, stained; "stylized bamboo turnings of the Wayland Family."Industrial chicSteel Stoolat ZARA HomeFrom Zara Home comes this sharp number. Not as tall as some, and, clearly, not intended for hours of sitting, this steel stool brings a chic taste of the industrial to any room. Dimensions17" H x 11" W x 11" DAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowWinsome Winsome Satori Stoolat AmazonWith a curved wooden seat and a classic, ladder-leg construction, this Winsome Satori stool is chic, simple, and affordable. Bonus: It's available in multiple heights.Dimensions16" H x 18" W x 29" DFeaturesSolid beech wood with a walnut finishLancaster Stool at webstaurantstore.comIndustrial but make it comfortable: The Lancaster stool comes in multiple colors and heights. Plus: the cushion is removable, making these stools stackable for easy storage. Dimensions24" H x 16 " D x 16" WFeaturesFrame is coated steel, and the cushion is corrosion-resistant powder coated vinyl. Holds up to 400 lbsAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowCurvy and Cushy Lulu and Georgia Ashford Bar Stoolat Lulu and GeorgiaThis curvy stool from Lulu and Georgia comes with the brusque silhouette of its industrial cousins tempered by the soft edges, arched lines, and plush seat of a comfortable chair.Dimensions30" H x 18.25" W x 18.25" DFeaturesAsh wood frame, foam cushion; hand-crafted and made from sustainable materialsThe Heavy-Lifting VacationerAlastair Bar & Counter StoolNow 37% Offat Joss & MainA return to the vacation rattan, this classic, backless stool comes with all the attitude of a beach cabana at a reasonable price. Offered in multiple colors and heights for beach-adjacent rooms of all sorts. Surprisingly, perhaps, this stool claims to hold up to 500 lbs, making it the heaviest lifter of them all. Dimensinos24'' H X 16'' W X 16'' DFeaturesMade from rattan and plastic, it can hold up to 500 lbsAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowInnovative eleganceMoon Stoolat sunatsix.comIt's all about the considered design on these moon stools. But, made from solid white oak treated with tenna oil, they're also stain resistant and built for use. Dimensions30” H x 19.5” W x 16”DFeatureshand-made from white oak using traditional joinery; three finishes availableHigh-quality classic Range Stoolat assemblyline.coThese classic stools are solid wood, handmade, and all about the understated beauty of quality. Which also means you'll need to order these well in advance of your first soiree, as they take roughly 12 to 14 weeks to make. Dimensions25” H x 13” L x 13” WFeaturesMade from white oak; multiple finishes available.Advertisement - Continue Reading BelowMainstays Natural wood stoolat WalmartYes, Walmart makes a totally serviceable, classic wooden bar stool. Sold in packs of two, and available in multiple heights, they get the job done. Dimensions13.50" H x 29.00" D x 13.50" WFeaturesMade from woodFrequently Asked QuestionsWhat makes a bar stool comfortable? Let's be honest: Most stools are not built for comfort. Especially the perch variety, as we're calling it—stools with just a flat shelf or round disk to sit on—are functional. If comfort is high on the must-have list, look for a perch with a slightly concave seat, engineered for the shape of a human body. Or skip the perch and go for stools with backrests and cushions. Here's a rule of thumb: the thicker the cushion, the higher the back, the longer you'll want to sit. Ideally, however, you'll find a showroom to test out any piece you're looking to invest in. How do you clean a stool? Most of the stools we've listed have specific instructions for cleaning, but non-abrasive cleaners are always recommended. And, most if not all of the stools we've chosen are intended for indoor use only. Even indoors, however, keeping your stools out of direct sunlight will help preserve the finish. Advertisement - Continue Reading BelowWhy Trust Us?For more than three decades, ELLE DECOR has covered stylemakers, trendsetting interiors, and must-have home furnishings. With a focus on the latest design trends and ideas about how to incorporate them into improving your own space, we’re your go-to resource for elevating and beautifying your home. Our team of editors and interior design pros research and review every new article we publish to ensure you have the most up-to-date, expert-approved information. #best #barstools #counter #stools
    WWW.ELLEDECOR.COM
    The 17 Best Barstools and Counter Stools
    Bar stools aren't intended for hours of lounging. What they are intended for, however, is constant use. Because what’s a bar if not a counter by another name? And a counter, in many cases, is also a breakfast table, the after-school snack buffet, the take-out and basketball-watching hub, and, eventually, the cocktail bar, come hosting hour. For each activity, the same seat does its duty. Unlike dining room chairs, bar stools suffer thoughtlessness: We yank them out, half asleep in the morning. We hike our feet up their pegs, lost in a TV show's plot. When friends come over, we lean forward, animatedly. All the while unwittingly testing each little joint and bolt beneath us. That’s why shopping for them requires a good deal of thought. So, we went ahead and did a lot of that thinking for you. Below, you’ll find some of ELLE Decor's favorite stools, from the design-forward to the budget-conscious. You'll also find a little about what went into our choices. The Classic (with a Back) Carter Counter Stool$398 at Serena and LilyThere's a lot to be said for a classic. With this elevated chair-like stool, you can rest against the back and bring your feet up to its pegs. Also, it comes in six colorways.Dimensions37"H x 18.25" W x 21" DFeaturesSolid beech, painted finish. No assembly required. Holds up to 275 lbsThe Vacationer Avalon Rattan Swivel Bar Stool$648 at Serena and Lily If there's a material evocative of vacation, it's rattan. This version also has a swivel seat and basket-weave back. But, you'll have to appreciate the natural wear on a material—it's part of the appeal. Dimensions38.5"H x 20.5"W x 22"DFeaturesMade with hand-wrapped rattan, holds up to 300 lbsAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowLaurel Foundry Modern Farmhouse® Baggett Solid Wood Windsor Back StoolNow 15% Off$165 $140 at WayfairIf you like the look of light wood but at an affordable pricepoint, this option from Wayfair is totally serviceable. And, it comes in three classic colorways. Dimensions14.8'' W X 14.2'' D; back is 12.5'' HFeaturesWood frame, some assembly required; holds up to 300 lbsMartha Stewart Martha Stewart Playa Handcrafted Rattan Counter StoolNow 36% Off$399 $256 at WayfairTDimensions35'' H x 23'' W x 22.5'' DFeaturessolid wood; some assembly required. Holds up to 300 lbsAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowElegant designVanity Counter Stool$3,400 at nickeykehoe.comAnd what if you want the back, the cushioned seat, and a considered, elevated design? Time to check on Nickey Kehoe. Says our own Interiors Director, Bebe Howorth: “I love a stool with a little bit of back support, but doesn’t impose on the space like a chair.” Dimensions33.25" H x 18" W x 19.5" DFeaturesNatural oak; Susan Deliss, constanza in denimBarely-there backrestSede Counter Stool $249 at ArticleA short back, a cushioned seat, and an elegant, tapered leg, this stool has a lovely silhouette at a low price point. Available in three colorways and the option of a leather (versus fabric) seat. Dimensions31"H x 16"W x 17"DFeaturesSolid and veneered wood, holds up to 300 lbsAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowWayne Swivel Bar & Counter Stools$449 at West ElmThere's no denying the appeal of the swivel. And if you foresee your bar stools serving a primarily social function, you'll want to seek that out. As Dorothy Scarborough, Editorial Assistant at ELLE Decor and Town & Country says: "Bar stools, by their very design, are tricky. When you're a few martinis in, it's fun to swing your legs and turn in circles, but when you're trying to enjoy a bowl of cereal, bar stools make for a less than ideal experience. This West Elm design has a higher back and arms, and at only 26 inches off the ground, doesn't make you feel like you're sitting on a tower. It's almost like a real chair, but it has all the jazzy chicness of a barstool."Adam Stool$610 at framacph.comOf course, not all stools need to be tall chairs. The perch-type stool can serve its function expertly, even with a minimal design, like this one from Frama. Dimension30" H x 17" W x 10" DFeaturesPowder coated frame, oiled seat; steel frame, oak seatAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowErgonomic PerchWayland stool $1,110 at oandgstudio.comPrepare for a comfortable perch with this statuesque stool from O&G Studio. Says ELLE Decor's Market Director, Benjamin Reynaert: "I personally sit-tested the Wayland Stool, and let me tell you—the carved solid wood seat isn’t just a design detail, it’s a comfort revelation, perfectly pairing form with the casual functionality of its bamboo-inspired turnings and classic box stretcher base, all available in a palette of 19 hand-applied stained finishes that highlight the American craftsmanship of O&G Studio."Dimensions25" H x 21.25" W x 18" DFeaturesMade with ash and maple wood, stained; "stylized bamboo turnings of the Wayland Family."Industrial chicSteel Stool$129 at ZARA HomeFrom Zara Home comes this sharp number. Not as tall as some, and, clearly, not intended for hours of sitting, this steel stool brings a chic taste of the industrial to any room. Dimensions17" H x 11" W x 11" DAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowWinsome Winsome Satori Stool$36 at AmazonWith a curved wooden seat and a classic, ladder-leg construction, this Winsome Satori stool is chic, simple, and affordable. Bonus: It's available in multiple heights.Dimensions16" H x 18" W x 29" DFeaturesSolid beech wood with a walnut finishLancaster Stool $48 at webstaurantstore.comIndustrial but make it comfortable: The Lancaster stool comes in multiple colors and heights. Plus: the cushion is removable, making these stools stackable for easy storage. Dimensions24" H x 16 " D x 16" WFeaturesFrame is coated steel, and the cushion is corrosion-resistant powder coated vinyl. Holds up to 400 lbsAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowCurvy and Cushy Lulu and Georgia Ashford Bar Stool$598 at Lulu and GeorgiaThis curvy stool from Lulu and Georgia comes with the brusque silhouette of its industrial cousins tempered by the soft edges, arched lines, and plush seat of a comfortable chair.Dimensions30" H x 18.25" W x 18.25" DFeaturesAsh wood frame, foam cushion; hand-crafted and made from sustainable materialsThe Heavy-Lifting VacationerAlastair Bar & Counter StoolNow 37% Off$264 $167 at Joss & MainA return to the vacation rattan, this classic, backless stool comes with all the attitude of a beach cabana at a reasonable price. Offered in multiple colors and heights for beach-adjacent rooms of all sorts. Surprisingly, perhaps, this stool claims to hold up to 500 lbs, making it the heaviest lifter of them all. Dimensinos24'' H X 16'' W X 16'' DFeaturesMade from rattan and plastic, it can hold up to 500 lbsAdvertisement - Continue Reading BelowInnovative eleganceMoon Stool$880 at sunatsix.comIt's all about the considered design on these moon stools. But, made from solid white oak treated with tenna oil, they're also stain resistant and built for use. Dimensions30” H x 19.5” W x 16”DFeatureshand-made from white oak using traditional joinery; three finishes availableHigh-quality classic Range Stool$1,200 at assemblyline.coThese classic stools are solid wood, handmade, and all about the understated beauty of quality. Which also means you'll need to order these well in advance of your first soiree, as they take roughly 12 to 14 weeks to make. Dimensions25” H x 13” L x 13” WFeaturesMade from white oak; multiple finishes available.Advertisement - Continue Reading BelowMainstays Natural wood stool$35 at WalmartYes, Walmart makes a totally serviceable, classic wooden bar stool. Sold in packs of two, and available in multiple heights, they get the job done. Dimensions13.50" H x 29.00" D x 13.50" WFeaturesMade from woodFrequently Asked QuestionsWhat makes a bar stool comfortable? Let's be honest: Most stools are not built for comfort. Especially the perch variety, as we're calling it—stools with just a flat shelf or round disk to sit on—are functional. If comfort is high on the must-have list, look for a perch with a slightly concave seat, engineered for the shape of a human body. Or skip the perch and go for stools with backrests and cushions. Here's a rule of thumb: the thicker the cushion, the higher the back, the longer you'll want to sit. Ideally, however, you'll find a showroom to test out any piece you're looking to invest in. How do you clean a stool? Most of the stools we've listed have specific instructions for cleaning, but non-abrasive cleaners are always recommended. And, most if not all of the stools we've chosen are intended for indoor use only. Even indoors, however, keeping your stools out of direct sunlight will help preserve the finish. Advertisement - Continue Reading BelowWhy Trust Us?For more than three decades, ELLE DECOR has covered stylemakers, trendsetting interiors, and must-have home furnishings. With a focus on the latest design trends and ideas about how to incorporate them into improving your own space, we’re your go-to resource for elevating and beautifying your home. Our team of editors and interior design pros research and review every new article we publish to ensure you have the most up-to-date, expert-approved information.
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились