• NVIDIA and Partners Highlight Next-Generation Robotics, Automation and AI Technologies at Automatica

    From the heart of Germany’s automotive sector to manufacturing hubs across France and Italy, Europe is embracing industrial AI and advanced AI-powered robotics to address labor shortages, boost productivity and fuel sustainable economic growth.
    Robotics companies are developing humanoid robots and collaborative systems that integrate AI into real-world manufacturing applications. Supported by a billion investment initiative and coordinated efforts from the European Commission, Europe is positioning itself at the forefront of the next wave of industrial automation, powered by AI.
    This momentum is on full display at Automatica — Europe’s premier conference on advancements in robotics, machine vision and intelligent manufacturing — taking place this week in Munich, Germany.
    NVIDIA and its ecosystem of partners and customers are showcasing next-generation robots, automation and AI technologies designed to accelerate the continent’s leadership in smart manufacturing and logistics.
    NVIDIA Technologies Boost Robotics Development 
    Central to advancing robotics development is Europe’s first industrial AI cloud, announced at NVIDIA GTC Paris at VivaTech earlier this month. The Germany-based AI factory, featuring 10,000 NVIDIA GPUs, provides European manufacturers with secure, sovereign and centralized AI infrastructure for industrial workloads. It will support applications ranging from design and engineering to factory digital twins and robotics.
    To help accelerate humanoid development, NVIDIA released NVIDIA Isaac GR00T N1.5 — an open foundation model for humanoid robot reasoning and skills. This update enhances the model’s adaptability and ability to follow instructions, significantly improving its performance in material handling and manufacturing tasks.
    To help post-train GR00T N1.5, NVIDIA has also released the Isaac GR00T-Dreams blueprint — a reference workflow for generating vast amounts of synthetic trajectory data from a small number of human demonstrations — enabling robots to generalize across behaviors and adapt to new environments with minimal human demonstration data.
    In addition, early developer previews of NVIDIA Isaac Sim 5.0 and Isaac Lab 2.2 — open-source robot simulation and learning frameworks optimized for NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 workstations — are now available on GitHub.
    Image courtesy of Wandelbots.
    Robotics Leaders Tap NVIDIA Simulation Technology to Develop and Deploy Humanoids and More 
    Robotics developers and solutions providers across the globe are integrating NVIDIA’s three computers to train, simulate and deploy robots.
    NEURA Robotics, a German robotics company and pioneer for cognitive robots, unveiled the third generation of its humanoid, 4NE1, designed to assist humans in domestic and professional environments through advanced cognitive capabilities and humanlike interaction. 4NE1 is powered by GR00T N1 and was trained in Isaac Sim and Isaac Lab before real-world deployment.
    NEURA Robotics is also presenting Neuraverse, a digital twin and interconnected ecosystem for robot training, skills and applications, fully compatible with NVIDIA Omniverse technologies.
    Delta Electronics, a global leader in power management and smart green solutions, is debuting two next-generation collaborative robots: D-Bot Mar and D-Bot 2 in 1 — both trained using Omniverse and Isaac Sim technologies and libraries. These cobots are engineered to transform intralogistics and optimize production flows.
    Wandelbots, the creator of the Wandelbots NOVA software platform for industrial robotics, is partnering with SoftServe, a global IT consulting and digital services provider, to scale simulation-first automating using NVIDIA Isaac Sim, enabling virtual validation and real-world deployment with maximum impact.
    Cyngn, a pioneer in autonomous mobile robotics, is integrating its DriveMod technology into Isaac Sim to enable large-scale, high fidelity virtual testing of advanced autonomous operation. Purpose-built for industrial applications, DriveMod is already deployed on vehicles such as the Motrec MT-160 Tugger and BYD Forklift, delivering sophisticated automation to material handling operations.
    Doosan Robotics, a company specializing in AI robotic solutions, will showcase its “sim to real” solution, using NVIDIA Isaac Sim and cuRobo. Doosan will be showcasing how to seamlessly transfer tasks from simulation to real robots across a wide range of applications — from manufacturing to service industries.
    Franka Robotics has integrated Isaac GR00T N1.5 into a dual-arm Franka Research 3robot for robotic control. The integration of GR00T N1.5 allows the system to interpret visual input, understand task context and autonomously perform complex manipulation — without the need for task-specific programming or hardcoded logic.
    Image courtesy of Franka Robotics.
    Hexagon, the global leader in measurement technologies, launched its new humanoid, dubbed AEON. With its unique locomotion system and multimodal sensor fusion, and powered by NVIDIA’s three-computer solution, AEON is engineered to perform a wide range of industrial applications, from manipulation and asset inspection to reality capture and operator support.
    Intrinsic, a software and AI robotics company, is integrating Intrinsic Flowstate with  Omniverse and OpenUSD for advanced visualization and digital twins that can be used in many industrial use cases. The company is also using NVIDIA foundation models to enhance robot capabilities like grasp planning through AI and simulation technologies.
    SCHUNK, a global leader in gripping systems and automation technology, is showcasing its innovative grasping kit powered by the NVIDIA Jetson AGX Orin module. The kit intelligently detects objects and calculates optimal grasping points. Schunk is also demonstrating seamless simulation-to-reality transfer using IGS Virtuous software — built on Omniverse technologies — to control a real robot through simulation in a pick-and-place scenario.
    Universal Robots is showcasing UR15, its fastest cobot yet. Powered by the UR AI Accelerator — developed with NVIDIA and running on Jetson AGX Orin using CUDA-accelerated Isaac libraries — UR15 helps set a new standard for industrial automation.

    Vention, a full-stack software and hardware automation company, launched its Machine Motion AI, built on CUDA-accelerated Isaac libraries and powered by Jetson. Vention is also expanding its lineup of robotic offerings by adding the FR3 robot from Franka Robotics to its ecosystem, enhancing its solutions for academic and research applications.
    Image courtesy of Vention.
    Learn more about the latest robotics advancements by joining NVIDIA at Automatica, running through Friday, June 27. 
    #nvidia #partners #highlight #nextgeneration #robotics
    NVIDIA and Partners Highlight Next-Generation Robotics, Automation and AI Technologies at Automatica
    From the heart of Germany’s automotive sector to manufacturing hubs across France and Italy, Europe is embracing industrial AI and advanced AI-powered robotics to address labor shortages, boost productivity and fuel sustainable economic growth. Robotics companies are developing humanoid robots and collaborative systems that integrate AI into real-world manufacturing applications. Supported by a billion investment initiative and coordinated efforts from the European Commission, Europe is positioning itself at the forefront of the next wave of industrial automation, powered by AI. This momentum is on full display at Automatica — Europe’s premier conference on advancements in robotics, machine vision and intelligent manufacturing — taking place this week in Munich, Germany. NVIDIA and its ecosystem of partners and customers are showcasing next-generation robots, automation and AI technologies designed to accelerate the continent’s leadership in smart manufacturing and logistics. NVIDIA Technologies Boost Robotics Development  Central to advancing robotics development is Europe’s first industrial AI cloud, announced at NVIDIA GTC Paris at VivaTech earlier this month. The Germany-based AI factory, featuring 10,000 NVIDIA GPUs, provides European manufacturers with secure, sovereign and centralized AI infrastructure for industrial workloads. It will support applications ranging from design and engineering to factory digital twins and robotics. To help accelerate humanoid development, NVIDIA released NVIDIA Isaac GR00T N1.5 — an open foundation model for humanoid robot reasoning and skills. This update enhances the model’s adaptability and ability to follow instructions, significantly improving its performance in material handling and manufacturing tasks. To help post-train GR00T N1.5, NVIDIA has also released the Isaac GR00T-Dreams blueprint — a reference workflow for generating vast amounts of synthetic trajectory data from a small number of human demonstrations — enabling robots to generalize across behaviors and adapt to new environments with minimal human demonstration data. In addition, early developer previews of NVIDIA Isaac Sim 5.0 and Isaac Lab 2.2 — open-source robot simulation and learning frameworks optimized for NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 workstations — are now available on GitHub. Image courtesy of Wandelbots. Robotics Leaders Tap NVIDIA Simulation Technology to Develop and Deploy Humanoids and More  Robotics developers and solutions providers across the globe are integrating NVIDIA’s three computers to train, simulate and deploy robots. NEURA Robotics, a German robotics company and pioneer for cognitive robots, unveiled the third generation of its humanoid, 4NE1, designed to assist humans in domestic and professional environments through advanced cognitive capabilities and humanlike interaction. 4NE1 is powered by GR00T N1 and was trained in Isaac Sim and Isaac Lab before real-world deployment. NEURA Robotics is also presenting Neuraverse, a digital twin and interconnected ecosystem for robot training, skills and applications, fully compatible with NVIDIA Omniverse technologies. Delta Electronics, a global leader in power management and smart green solutions, is debuting two next-generation collaborative robots: D-Bot Mar and D-Bot 2 in 1 — both trained using Omniverse and Isaac Sim technologies and libraries. These cobots are engineered to transform intralogistics and optimize production flows. Wandelbots, the creator of the Wandelbots NOVA software platform for industrial robotics, is partnering with SoftServe, a global IT consulting and digital services provider, to scale simulation-first automating using NVIDIA Isaac Sim, enabling virtual validation and real-world deployment with maximum impact. Cyngn, a pioneer in autonomous mobile robotics, is integrating its DriveMod technology into Isaac Sim to enable large-scale, high fidelity virtual testing of advanced autonomous operation. Purpose-built for industrial applications, DriveMod is already deployed on vehicles such as the Motrec MT-160 Tugger and BYD Forklift, delivering sophisticated automation to material handling operations. Doosan Robotics, a company specializing in AI robotic solutions, will showcase its “sim to real” solution, using NVIDIA Isaac Sim and cuRobo. Doosan will be showcasing how to seamlessly transfer tasks from simulation to real robots across a wide range of applications — from manufacturing to service industries. Franka Robotics has integrated Isaac GR00T N1.5 into a dual-arm Franka Research 3robot for robotic control. The integration of GR00T N1.5 allows the system to interpret visual input, understand task context and autonomously perform complex manipulation — without the need for task-specific programming or hardcoded logic. Image courtesy of Franka Robotics. Hexagon, the global leader in measurement technologies, launched its new humanoid, dubbed AEON. With its unique locomotion system and multimodal sensor fusion, and powered by NVIDIA’s three-computer solution, AEON is engineered to perform a wide range of industrial applications, from manipulation and asset inspection to reality capture and operator support. Intrinsic, a software and AI robotics company, is integrating Intrinsic Flowstate with  Omniverse and OpenUSD for advanced visualization and digital twins that can be used in many industrial use cases. The company is also using NVIDIA foundation models to enhance robot capabilities like grasp planning through AI and simulation technologies. SCHUNK, a global leader in gripping systems and automation technology, is showcasing its innovative grasping kit powered by the NVIDIA Jetson AGX Orin module. The kit intelligently detects objects and calculates optimal grasping points. Schunk is also demonstrating seamless simulation-to-reality transfer using IGS Virtuous software — built on Omniverse technologies — to control a real robot through simulation in a pick-and-place scenario. Universal Robots is showcasing UR15, its fastest cobot yet. Powered by the UR AI Accelerator — developed with NVIDIA and running on Jetson AGX Orin using CUDA-accelerated Isaac libraries — UR15 helps set a new standard for industrial automation. Vention, a full-stack software and hardware automation company, launched its Machine Motion AI, built on CUDA-accelerated Isaac libraries and powered by Jetson. Vention is also expanding its lineup of robotic offerings by adding the FR3 robot from Franka Robotics to its ecosystem, enhancing its solutions for academic and research applications. Image courtesy of Vention. Learn more about the latest robotics advancements by joining NVIDIA at Automatica, running through Friday, June 27.  #nvidia #partners #highlight #nextgeneration #robotics
    BLOGS.NVIDIA.COM
    NVIDIA and Partners Highlight Next-Generation Robotics, Automation and AI Technologies at Automatica
    From the heart of Germany’s automotive sector to manufacturing hubs across France and Italy, Europe is embracing industrial AI and advanced AI-powered robotics to address labor shortages, boost productivity and fuel sustainable economic growth. Robotics companies are developing humanoid robots and collaborative systems that integrate AI into real-world manufacturing applications. Supported by a $200 billion investment initiative and coordinated efforts from the European Commission, Europe is positioning itself at the forefront of the next wave of industrial automation, powered by AI. This momentum is on full display at Automatica — Europe’s premier conference on advancements in robotics, machine vision and intelligent manufacturing — taking place this week in Munich, Germany. NVIDIA and its ecosystem of partners and customers are showcasing next-generation robots, automation and AI technologies designed to accelerate the continent’s leadership in smart manufacturing and logistics. NVIDIA Technologies Boost Robotics Development  Central to advancing robotics development is Europe’s first industrial AI cloud, announced at NVIDIA GTC Paris at VivaTech earlier this month. The Germany-based AI factory, featuring 10,000 NVIDIA GPUs, provides European manufacturers with secure, sovereign and centralized AI infrastructure for industrial workloads. It will support applications ranging from design and engineering to factory digital twins and robotics. To help accelerate humanoid development, NVIDIA released NVIDIA Isaac GR00T N1.5 — an open foundation model for humanoid robot reasoning and skills. This update enhances the model’s adaptability and ability to follow instructions, significantly improving its performance in material handling and manufacturing tasks. To help post-train GR00T N1.5, NVIDIA has also released the Isaac GR00T-Dreams blueprint — a reference workflow for generating vast amounts of synthetic trajectory data from a small number of human demonstrations — enabling robots to generalize across behaviors and adapt to new environments with minimal human demonstration data. In addition, early developer previews of NVIDIA Isaac Sim 5.0 and Isaac Lab 2.2 — open-source robot simulation and learning frameworks optimized for NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 workstations — are now available on GitHub. Image courtesy of Wandelbots. Robotics Leaders Tap NVIDIA Simulation Technology to Develop and Deploy Humanoids and More  Robotics developers and solutions providers across the globe are integrating NVIDIA’s three computers to train, simulate and deploy robots. NEURA Robotics, a German robotics company and pioneer for cognitive robots, unveiled the third generation of its humanoid, 4NE1, designed to assist humans in domestic and professional environments through advanced cognitive capabilities and humanlike interaction. 4NE1 is powered by GR00T N1 and was trained in Isaac Sim and Isaac Lab before real-world deployment. NEURA Robotics is also presenting Neuraverse, a digital twin and interconnected ecosystem for robot training, skills and applications, fully compatible with NVIDIA Omniverse technologies. Delta Electronics, a global leader in power management and smart green solutions, is debuting two next-generation collaborative robots: D-Bot Mar and D-Bot 2 in 1 — both trained using Omniverse and Isaac Sim technologies and libraries. These cobots are engineered to transform intralogistics and optimize production flows. Wandelbots, the creator of the Wandelbots NOVA software platform for industrial robotics, is partnering with SoftServe, a global IT consulting and digital services provider, to scale simulation-first automating using NVIDIA Isaac Sim, enabling virtual validation and real-world deployment with maximum impact. Cyngn, a pioneer in autonomous mobile robotics, is integrating its DriveMod technology into Isaac Sim to enable large-scale, high fidelity virtual testing of advanced autonomous operation. Purpose-built for industrial applications, DriveMod is already deployed on vehicles such as the Motrec MT-160 Tugger and BYD Forklift, delivering sophisticated automation to material handling operations. Doosan Robotics, a company specializing in AI robotic solutions, will showcase its “sim to real” solution, using NVIDIA Isaac Sim and cuRobo. Doosan will be showcasing how to seamlessly transfer tasks from simulation to real robots across a wide range of applications — from manufacturing to service industries. Franka Robotics has integrated Isaac GR00T N1.5 into a dual-arm Franka Research 3 (FR3) robot for robotic control. The integration of GR00T N1.5 allows the system to interpret visual input, understand task context and autonomously perform complex manipulation — without the need for task-specific programming or hardcoded logic. Image courtesy of Franka Robotics. Hexagon, the global leader in measurement technologies, launched its new humanoid, dubbed AEON. With its unique locomotion system and multimodal sensor fusion, and powered by NVIDIA’s three-computer solution, AEON is engineered to perform a wide range of industrial applications, from manipulation and asset inspection to reality capture and operator support. Intrinsic, a software and AI robotics company, is integrating Intrinsic Flowstate with  Omniverse and OpenUSD for advanced visualization and digital twins that can be used in many industrial use cases. The company is also using NVIDIA foundation models to enhance robot capabilities like grasp planning through AI and simulation technologies. SCHUNK, a global leader in gripping systems and automation technology, is showcasing its innovative grasping kit powered by the NVIDIA Jetson AGX Orin module. The kit intelligently detects objects and calculates optimal grasping points. Schunk is also demonstrating seamless simulation-to-reality transfer using IGS Virtuous software — built on Omniverse technologies — to control a real robot through simulation in a pick-and-place scenario. Universal Robots is showcasing UR15, its fastest cobot yet. Powered by the UR AI Accelerator — developed with NVIDIA and running on Jetson AGX Orin using CUDA-accelerated Isaac libraries — UR15 helps set a new standard for industrial automation. Vention, a full-stack software and hardware automation company, launched its Machine Motion AI, built on CUDA-accelerated Isaac libraries and powered by Jetson. Vention is also expanding its lineup of robotic offerings by adding the FR3 robot from Franka Robotics to its ecosystem, enhancing its solutions for academic and research applications. Image courtesy of Vention. Learn more about the latest robotics advancements by joining NVIDIA at Automatica, running through Friday, June 27. 
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    19
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Into the Omniverse: World Foundation Models Advance Autonomous Vehicle Simulation and Safety

    Editor’s note: This blog is a part of Into the Omniverse, a series focused on how developers, 3D practitioners and enterprises can transform their workflows using the latest advances in OpenUSD and NVIDIA Omniverse.
    Simulated driving environments enable engineers to safely and efficiently train, test and validate autonomous vehiclesacross countless real-world and edge-case scenarios without the risks and costs of physical testing.
    These simulated environments can be created through neural reconstruction of real-world data from AV fleets or generated with world foundation models— neural networks that understand physics and real-world properties. WFMs can be used to generate synthetic datasets for enhanced AV simulation.
    To help physical AI developers build such simulated environments, NVIDIA unveiled major advances in WFMs at the GTC Paris and CVPR conferences earlier this month. These new capabilities enhance NVIDIA Cosmos — a platform of generative WFMs, advanced tokenizers, guardrails and accelerated data processing tools.
    Key innovations like Cosmos Predict-2, the Cosmos Transfer-1 NVIDIA preview NIM microservice and Cosmos Reason are improving how AV developers generate synthetic data, build realistic simulated environments and validate safety systems at unprecedented scale.
    Universal Scene Description, a unified data framework and standard for physical AI applications, enables seamless integration and interoperability of simulation assets across the development pipeline. OpenUSD standardization plays a critical role in ensuring 3D pipelines are built to scale.
    NVIDIA Omniverse, a platform of application programming interfaces, software development kits and services for building OpenUSD-based physical AI applications, enables simulations from WFMs and neural reconstruction at world scale.
    Leading AV organizations — including Foretellix, Mcity, Oxa, Parallel Domain, Plus AI and Uber — are among the first to adopt Cosmos models.

    Foundations for Scalable, Realistic Simulation
    Cosmos Predict-2, NVIDIA’s latest WFM, generates high-quality synthetic data by predicting future world states from multimodal inputs like text, images and video. This capability is critical for creating temporally consistent, realistic scenarios that accelerate training and validation of AVs and robots.

    In addition, Cosmos Transfer, a control model that adds variations in weather, lighting and terrain to existing scenarios, will soon be available to 150,000 developers on CARLA, a leading open-source AV simulator. This greatly expands the broad AV developer community’s access to advanced AI-powered simulation tools.
    Developers can start integrating synthetic data into their own pipelines using the NVIDIA Physical AI Dataset. The latest release includes 40,000 clips generated using Cosmos.
    Building on these foundations, the Omniverse Blueprint for AV simulation provides a standardized, API-driven workflow for constructing rich digital twins, replaying real-world sensor data and generating new ground-truth data for closed-loop testing.
    The blueprint taps into OpenUSD’s layer-stacking and composition arcs, which enable developers to collaborate asynchronously and modify scenes nondestructively. This helps create modular, reusable scenario variants to efficiently generate different weather conditions, traffic patterns and edge cases.
    Driving the Future of AV Safety
    To bolster the operational safety of AV systems, NVIDIA earlier this year introduced NVIDIA Halos — a comprehensive safety platform that integrates the company’s full automotive hardware and software stack with AI research focused on AV safety.
    The new Cosmos models — Cosmos Predict- 2, Cosmos Transfer- 1 NIM and Cosmos Reason — deliver further safety enhancements to the Halos platform, enabling developers to create diverse, controllable and realistic scenarios for training and validating AV systems.
    These models, trained on massive multimodal datasets including driving data, amplify the breadth and depth of simulation, allowing for robust scenario coverage — including rare and safety-critical events — while supporting post-training customization for specialized AV tasks.

    At CVPR, NVIDIA was recognized as an Autonomous Grand Challenge winner, highlighting its leadership in advancing end-to-end AV workflows. The challenge used OpenUSD’s robust metadata and interoperability to simulate sensor inputs and vehicle trajectories in semi-reactive environments, achieving state-of-the-art results in safety and compliance.
    Learn more about how developers are leveraging tools like CARLA, Cosmos, and Omniverse to advance AV simulation in this livestream replay:

    Hear NVIDIA Director of Autonomous Vehicle Research Marco Pavone on the NVIDIA AI Podcast share how digital twins and high-fidelity simulation are improving vehicle testing, accelerating development and reducing real-world risks.
    Get Plugged Into the World of OpenUSD
    Learn more about what’s next for AV simulation with OpenUSD by watching the replay of NVIDIA founder and CEO Jensen Huang’s GTC Paris keynote.
    Looking for more live opportunities to learn more about OpenUSD? Don’t miss sessions and labs happening at SIGGRAPH 2025, August 10–14.
    Discover why developers and 3D practitioners are using OpenUSD and learn how to optimize 3D workflows with the self-paced “Learn OpenUSD” curriculum for 3D developers and practitioners, available for free through the NVIDIA Deep Learning Institute.
    Explore the Alliance for OpenUSD forum and the AOUSD website.
    Stay up to date by subscribing to NVIDIA Omniverse news, joining the community and following NVIDIA Omniverse on Instagram, LinkedIn, Medium and X.
    #into #omniverse #world #foundation #models
    Into the Omniverse: World Foundation Models Advance Autonomous Vehicle Simulation and Safety
    Editor’s note: This blog is a part of Into the Omniverse, a series focused on how developers, 3D practitioners and enterprises can transform their workflows using the latest advances in OpenUSD and NVIDIA Omniverse. Simulated driving environments enable engineers to safely and efficiently train, test and validate autonomous vehiclesacross countless real-world and edge-case scenarios without the risks and costs of physical testing. These simulated environments can be created through neural reconstruction of real-world data from AV fleets or generated with world foundation models— neural networks that understand physics and real-world properties. WFMs can be used to generate synthetic datasets for enhanced AV simulation. To help physical AI developers build such simulated environments, NVIDIA unveiled major advances in WFMs at the GTC Paris and CVPR conferences earlier this month. These new capabilities enhance NVIDIA Cosmos — a platform of generative WFMs, advanced tokenizers, guardrails and accelerated data processing tools. Key innovations like Cosmos Predict-2, the Cosmos Transfer-1 NVIDIA preview NIM microservice and Cosmos Reason are improving how AV developers generate synthetic data, build realistic simulated environments and validate safety systems at unprecedented scale. Universal Scene Description, a unified data framework and standard for physical AI applications, enables seamless integration and interoperability of simulation assets across the development pipeline. OpenUSD standardization plays a critical role in ensuring 3D pipelines are built to scale. NVIDIA Omniverse, a platform of application programming interfaces, software development kits and services for building OpenUSD-based physical AI applications, enables simulations from WFMs and neural reconstruction at world scale. Leading AV organizations — including Foretellix, Mcity, Oxa, Parallel Domain, Plus AI and Uber — are among the first to adopt Cosmos models. Foundations for Scalable, Realistic Simulation Cosmos Predict-2, NVIDIA’s latest WFM, generates high-quality synthetic data by predicting future world states from multimodal inputs like text, images and video. This capability is critical for creating temporally consistent, realistic scenarios that accelerate training and validation of AVs and robots. In addition, Cosmos Transfer, a control model that adds variations in weather, lighting and terrain to existing scenarios, will soon be available to 150,000 developers on CARLA, a leading open-source AV simulator. This greatly expands the broad AV developer community’s access to advanced AI-powered simulation tools. Developers can start integrating synthetic data into their own pipelines using the NVIDIA Physical AI Dataset. The latest release includes 40,000 clips generated using Cosmos. Building on these foundations, the Omniverse Blueprint for AV simulation provides a standardized, API-driven workflow for constructing rich digital twins, replaying real-world sensor data and generating new ground-truth data for closed-loop testing. The blueprint taps into OpenUSD’s layer-stacking and composition arcs, which enable developers to collaborate asynchronously and modify scenes nondestructively. This helps create modular, reusable scenario variants to efficiently generate different weather conditions, traffic patterns and edge cases. Driving the Future of AV Safety To bolster the operational safety of AV systems, NVIDIA earlier this year introduced NVIDIA Halos — a comprehensive safety platform that integrates the company’s full automotive hardware and software stack with AI research focused on AV safety. The new Cosmos models — Cosmos Predict- 2, Cosmos Transfer- 1 NIM and Cosmos Reason — deliver further safety enhancements to the Halos platform, enabling developers to create diverse, controllable and realistic scenarios for training and validating AV systems. These models, trained on massive multimodal datasets including driving data, amplify the breadth and depth of simulation, allowing for robust scenario coverage — including rare and safety-critical events — while supporting post-training customization for specialized AV tasks. At CVPR, NVIDIA was recognized as an Autonomous Grand Challenge winner, highlighting its leadership in advancing end-to-end AV workflows. The challenge used OpenUSD’s robust metadata and interoperability to simulate sensor inputs and vehicle trajectories in semi-reactive environments, achieving state-of-the-art results in safety and compliance. Learn more about how developers are leveraging tools like CARLA, Cosmos, and Omniverse to advance AV simulation in this livestream replay: Hear NVIDIA Director of Autonomous Vehicle Research Marco Pavone on the NVIDIA AI Podcast share how digital twins and high-fidelity simulation are improving vehicle testing, accelerating development and reducing real-world risks. Get Plugged Into the World of OpenUSD Learn more about what’s next for AV simulation with OpenUSD by watching the replay of NVIDIA founder and CEO Jensen Huang’s GTC Paris keynote. Looking for more live opportunities to learn more about OpenUSD? Don’t miss sessions and labs happening at SIGGRAPH 2025, August 10–14. Discover why developers and 3D practitioners are using OpenUSD and learn how to optimize 3D workflows with the self-paced “Learn OpenUSD” curriculum for 3D developers and practitioners, available for free through the NVIDIA Deep Learning Institute. Explore the Alliance for OpenUSD forum and the AOUSD website. Stay up to date by subscribing to NVIDIA Omniverse news, joining the community and following NVIDIA Omniverse on Instagram, LinkedIn, Medium and X. #into #omniverse #world #foundation #models
    BLOGS.NVIDIA.COM
    Into the Omniverse: World Foundation Models Advance Autonomous Vehicle Simulation and Safety
    Editor’s note: This blog is a part of Into the Omniverse, a series focused on how developers, 3D practitioners and enterprises can transform their workflows using the latest advances in OpenUSD and NVIDIA Omniverse. Simulated driving environments enable engineers to safely and efficiently train, test and validate autonomous vehicles (AVs) across countless real-world and edge-case scenarios without the risks and costs of physical testing. These simulated environments can be created through neural reconstruction of real-world data from AV fleets or generated with world foundation models (WFMs) — neural networks that understand physics and real-world properties. WFMs can be used to generate synthetic datasets for enhanced AV simulation. To help physical AI developers build such simulated environments, NVIDIA unveiled major advances in WFMs at the GTC Paris and CVPR conferences earlier this month. These new capabilities enhance NVIDIA Cosmos — a platform of generative WFMs, advanced tokenizers, guardrails and accelerated data processing tools. Key innovations like Cosmos Predict-2, the Cosmos Transfer-1 NVIDIA preview NIM microservice and Cosmos Reason are improving how AV developers generate synthetic data, build realistic simulated environments and validate safety systems at unprecedented scale. Universal Scene Description (OpenUSD), a unified data framework and standard for physical AI applications, enables seamless integration and interoperability of simulation assets across the development pipeline. OpenUSD standardization plays a critical role in ensuring 3D pipelines are built to scale. NVIDIA Omniverse, a platform of application programming interfaces, software development kits and services for building OpenUSD-based physical AI applications, enables simulations from WFMs and neural reconstruction at world scale. Leading AV organizations — including Foretellix, Mcity, Oxa, Parallel Domain, Plus AI and Uber — are among the first to adopt Cosmos models. Foundations for Scalable, Realistic Simulation Cosmos Predict-2, NVIDIA’s latest WFM, generates high-quality synthetic data by predicting future world states from multimodal inputs like text, images and video. This capability is critical for creating temporally consistent, realistic scenarios that accelerate training and validation of AVs and robots. In addition, Cosmos Transfer, a control model that adds variations in weather, lighting and terrain to existing scenarios, will soon be available to 150,000 developers on CARLA, a leading open-source AV simulator. This greatly expands the broad AV developer community’s access to advanced AI-powered simulation tools. Developers can start integrating synthetic data into their own pipelines using the NVIDIA Physical AI Dataset. The latest release includes 40,000 clips generated using Cosmos. Building on these foundations, the Omniverse Blueprint for AV simulation provides a standardized, API-driven workflow for constructing rich digital twins, replaying real-world sensor data and generating new ground-truth data for closed-loop testing. The blueprint taps into OpenUSD’s layer-stacking and composition arcs, which enable developers to collaborate asynchronously and modify scenes nondestructively. This helps create modular, reusable scenario variants to efficiently generate different weather conditions, traffic patterns and edge cases. Driving the Future of AV Safety To bolster the operational safety of AV systems, NVIDIA earlier this year introduced NVIDIA Halos — a comprehensive safety platform that integrates the company’s full automotive hardware and software stack with AI research focused on AV safety. The new Cosmos models — Cosmos Predict- 2, Cosmos Transfer- 1 NIM and Cosmos Reason — deliver further safety enhancements to the Halos platform, enabling developers to create diverse, controllable and realistic scenarios for training and validating AV systems. These models, trained on massive multimodal datasets including driving data, amplify the breadth and depth of simulation, allowing for robust scenario coverage — including rare and safety-critical events — while supporting post-training customization for specialized AV tasks. At CVPR, NVIDIA was recognized as an Autonomous Grand Challenge winner, highlighting its leadership in advancing end-to-end AV workflows. The challenge used OpenUSD’s robust metadata and interoperability to simulate sensor inputs and vehicle trajectories in semi-reactive environments, achieving state-of-the-art results in safety and compliance. Learn more about how developers are leveraging tools like CARLA, Cosmos, and Omniverse to advance AV simulation in this livestream replay: Hear NVIDIA Director of Autonomous Vehicle Research Marco Pavone on the NVIDIA AI Podcast share how digital twins and high-fidelity simulation are improving vehicle testing, accelerating development and reducing real-world risks. Get Plugged Into the World of OpenUSD Learn more about what’s next for AV simulation with OpenUSD by watching the replay of NVIDIA founder and CEO Jensen Huang’s GTC Paris keynote. Looking for more live opportunities to learn more about OpenUSD? Don’t miss sessions and labs happening at SIGGRAPH 2025, August 10–14. Discover why developers and 3D practitioners are using OpenUSD and learn how to optimize 3D workflows with the self-paced “Learn OpenUSD” curriculum for 3D developers and practitioners, available for free through the NVIDIA Deep Learning Institute. Explore the Alliance for OpenUSD forum and the AOUSD website. Stay up to date by subscribing to NVIDIA Omniverse news, joining the community and following NVIDIA Omniverse on Instagram, LinkedIn, Medium and X.
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • It's astounding how many people still cling to outdated notions when it comes to the choice between hardware and software for electronics projects. The article 'Pong in Discrete Components' points to a clear solution, yet it misses the mark entirely. Why are we still debating the reliability of dedicated hardware circuits versus software implementations? Are we really that complacent?

    Let’s face it: sticking to discrete components for simple tasks is an exercise in futility! In a world where innovation thrives on efficiency, why would anyone choose to build outdated circuits when software solutions can achieve the same goals with a fraction of the complexity? It’s mind-boggling! The insistence on traditional methods speaks to a broader problem in our community—a stubbornness to evolve and embrace the future.

    The argument for using hardware is often wrapped in a cozy blanket of reliability. But let’s be honest, how reliable is that? Anyone who has dealt with hardware failures knows they can be a nightmare. Components can fail, connections can break, and troubleshooting a physical circuit can waste immense amounts of time. Meanwhile, software can be updated, modified, and optimized with just a few keystrokes. Why are we so quick to glorify something that is inherently flawed?

    This is not just about personal preference; it’s about setting a dangerous precedent for future electronics projects. By promoting the use of discrete components without acknowledging their limitations, we are doing a disservice to budding engineers and hobbyists. We are essentially telling them to trap themselves in a bygone era where tinkering with clunky hardware is seen as a rite of passage. It’s ridiculous!

    Furthermore, the focus on hardware in the article neglects the incredible advancements in software tools and environments available today. Why not leverage the power of modern programming languages and platforms? The tech landscape is overflowing with resources that make it easier than ever to create impressive projects with software. Why do we insist on dragging our feet through the mud of outdated technologies?

    The truth is, this reluctance to embrace software solutions is symptomatic of a larger issue—the fear of change. Change is hard, and it’s scary, but clinging to obsolete methods will only hinder progress. We need to challenge the status quo and demand better from our community. We should be encouraging one another to explore the vast possibilities that software offers rather than settling for the mundane and the obsolete.

    Let’s stop romanticizing the past and start looking forward. The world of electronics is rapidly evolving, and it’s time we caught up. Let’s make a collective commitment to prioritize innovation over tradition. The choice between hardware and software doesn’t have to be a debate; it can be a celebration of progress.

    #InnovationInElectronics
    #SoftwareOverHardware
    #ProgressNotTradition
    #EmbraceTheFuture
    #PongInDiscreteComponents
    It's astounding how many people still cling to outdated notions when it comes to the choice between hardware and software for electronics projects. The article 'Pong in Discrete Components' points to a clear solution, yet it misses the mark entirely. Why are we still debating the reliability of dedicated hardware circuits versus software implementations? Are we really that complacent? Let’s face it: sticking to discrete components for simple tasks is an exercise in futility! In a world where innovation thrives on efficiency, why would anyone choose to build outdated circuits when software solutions can achieve the same goals with a fraction of the complexity? It’s mind-boggling! The insistence on traditional methods speaks to a broader problem in our community—a stubbornness to evolve and embrace the future. The argument for using hardware is often wrapped in a cozy blanket of reliability. But let’s be honest, how reliable is that? Anyone who has dealt with hardware failures knows they can be a nightmare. Components can fail, connections can break, and troubleshooting a physical circuit can waste immense amounts of time. Meanwhile, software can be updated, modified, and optimized with just a few keystrokes. Why are we so quick to glorify something that is inherently flawed? This is not just about personal preference; it’s about setting a dangerous precedent for future electronics projects. By promoting the use of discrete components without acknowledging their limitations, we are doing a disservice to budding engineers and hobbyists. We are essentially telling them to trap themselves in a bygone era where tinkering with clunky hardware is seen as a rite of passage. It’s ridiculous! Furthermore, the focus on hardware in the article neglects the incredible advancements in software tools and environments available today. Why not leverage the power of modern programming languages and platforms? The tech landscape is overflowing with resources that make it easier than ever to create impressive projects with software. Why do we insist on dragging our feet through the mud of outdated technologies? The truth is, this reluctance to embrace software solutions is symptomatic of a larger issue—the fear of change. Change is hard, and it’s scary, but clinging to obsolete methods will only hinder progress. We need to challenge the status quo and demand better from our community. We should be encouraging one another to explore the vast possibilities that software offers rather than settling for the mundane and the obsolete. Let’s stop romanticizing the past and start looking forward. The world of electronics is rapidly evolving, and it’s time we caught up. Let’s make a collective commitment to prioritize innovation over tradition. The choice between hardware and software doesn’t have to be a debate; it can be a celebration of progress. #InnovationInElectronics #SoftwareOverHardware #ProgressNotTradition #EmbraceTheFuture #PongInDiscreteComponents
    HACKADAY.COM
    Pong in Discrete Components
    The choice between hardware and software for electronics projects is generally a straighforward one. For simple tasks we might build dedicated hardware circuits out of discrete components for reliability and …read more
    1 Comments 0 Shares
  • Ansys: R&D Engineer II (Remote - East Coast, US)

    Requisition #: 16890 Our Mission: Powering Innovation That Drives Human Advancement When visionary companies need to know how their world-changing ideas will perform, they close the gap between design and reality with Ansys simulation. For more than 50 years, Ansys software has enabled innovators across industries to push boundaries by using the predictive power of simulation. From sustainable transportation to advanced semiconductors, from satellite systems to life-saving medical devices, the next great leaps in human advancement will be powered by Ansys. Innovate With Ansys, Power Your Career. Summary / Role Purpose The R&D Engineer II contributes to the development of software products and supporting systems. In this role, the R&D Engineer II will collaborate with a team of expert professionals to understand customer requirements and accomplish development objectives. Key Duties and Responsibilities Performs moderately complex development activities, including the design, implementation, maintenance, testing and documentation of software modules and sub-systems Understands and employs best practices Performs moderately complex bug verification, release testing and beta support for assigned products. Researches problems discovered by QA or product support and develops solutions Understands the marketing requirements for a product, including target environment, performance criteria and competitive issues Works under the general supervision of a development manager Minimum Education/Certification Requirements and Experience BS in Computer Science, Applied Mathematics, Engineering, or other natural science disciplines with 3-5 years' experience or MS with minimum 2 years experience Working experience within technical software development proven by academic, research, or industry projects. Good understanding and skills in object-oriented programming Experience with Java and C# / .NET Role can be remote, must be based on the East Coast due to timezone Preferred Qualifications and Skills Experience with C++, Python, in addition to Java and C# / .NET Knowledge of Task-Based Asynchronous design patternExposure to model-based systems engineering concepts Working knowledge of SysML Know-how on cloud computing technologies like micro-service architectures, RPC frameworks, REST APIs, etc. Knowledge of software security best practices Experience working on an Agile software development team Technical knowledge and experience with various engineering tools and methodologies, such as Finite Element simulation, CAD modeling, and Systems Architecture modelling is a plus Ability to assist more junior developers on an as-needed basis Ability to learn quickly and to collaborate with others in a geographically distributed team Excellent communication and interpersonal skills At Ansys, we know that changing the world takes vision, skill, and each other. We fuel new ideas, build relationships, and help each other realize our greatest potential. We are ONE Ansys. We operate on three key components: our commitments to stakeholders, our values that guide how we work together, and our actions to deliver results. As ONE Ansys, we are powering innovation that drives human advancement Our Commitments:Amaze with innovative products and solutionsMake our customers incredibly successfulAct with integrityEnsure employees thrive and shareholders prosper Our Values:Adaptability: Be open, welcome what's nextCourage: Be courageous, move forward passionatelyGenerosity: Be generous, share, listen, serveAuthenticity: Be you, make us stronger Our Actions:We commit to audacious goalsWe work seamlessly as a teamWe demonstrate masteryWe deliver outstanding resultsVALUES IN ACTION Ansys is committed to powering the people who power human advancement. We believe in creating and nurturing a workplace that supports and welcomes people of all backgrounds; encouraging them to bring their talents and experience to a workplace where they are valued and can thrive. Our culture is grounded in our four core values of adaptability, courage, generosity, and authenticity. Through our behaviors and actions, these values foster higher team performance and greater innovation for our customers. We're proud to offer programs, available to all employees, to further impact innovation and business outcomes, such as employee networks and learning communities that inform solutions for our globally minded customer base. WELCOME WHAT'S NEXT IN YOUR CAREER AT ANSYS At Ansys, you will find yourself among the sharpest minds and most visionary leaders across the globe. Collectively, we strive to change the world with innovative technology and transformational solutions. With a prestigious reputation in working with well-known, world-class companies, standards at Ansys are high - met by those willing to rise to the occasion and meet those challenges head on. Our team is passionate about pushing the limits of world-class simulation technology, empowering our customers to turn their design concepts into successful, innovative products faster and at a lower cost. Ready to feel inspired? Check out some of our recent customer stories, here and here . At Ansys, it's about the learning, the discovery, and the collaboration. It's about the "what's next" as much as the "mission accomplished." And it's about the melding of disciplined intellect with strategic direction and results that have, can, and do impact real people in real ways. All this is forged within a working environment built on respect, autonomy, and ethics.CREATING A PLACE WE'RE PROUD TO BEAnsys is an S&P 500 company and a member of the NASDAQ-100. We are proud to have been recognized for the following more recent awards, although our list goes on: Newsweek's Most Loved Workplace globally and in the U.S., Gold Stevie Award Winner, America's Most Responsible Companies, Fast Company World Changing Ideas, Great Place to Work Certified.For more information, please visit us at Ansys is an Equal Opportunity Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, veteran status, and other protected characteristics.Ansys does not accept unsolicited referrals for vacancies, and any unsolicited referral will become the property of Ansys. Upon hire, no fee will be owed to the agency, person, or entity.Apply NowLet's start your dream job Apply now Meet JobCopilot: Your Personal AI Job HunterAutomatically Apply to Remote Full-Stack Programming JobsJust set your preferences and Job Copilot will do the rest-finding, filtering, and applying while you focus on what matters. Activate JobCopilot
    #ansys #rampampd #engineer #remote #east
    Ansys: R&D Engineer II (Remote - East Coast, US)
    Requisition #: 16890 Our Mission: Powering Innovation That Drives Human Advancement When visionary companies need to know how their world-changing ideas will perform, they close the gap between design and reality with Ansys simulation. For more than 50 years, Ansys software has enabled innovators across industries to push boundaries by using the predictive power of simulation. From sustainable transportation to advanced semiconductors, from satellite systems to life-saving medical devices, the next great leaps in human advancement will be powered by Ansys. Innovate With Ansys, Power Your Career. Summary / Role Purpose The R&D Engineer II contributes to the development of software products and supporting systems. In this role, the R&D Engineer II will collaborate with a team of expert professionals to understand customer requirements and accomplish development objectives. Key Duties and Responsibilities Performs moderately complex development activities, including the design, implementation, maintenance, testing and documentation of software modules and sub-systems Understands and employs best practices Performs moderately complex bug verification, release testing and beta support for assigned products. Researches problems discovered by QA or product support and develops solutions Understands the marketing requirements for a product, including target environment, performance criteria and competitive issues Works under the general supervision of a development manager Minimum Education/Certification Requirements and Experience BS in Computer Science, Applied Mathematics, Engineering, or other natural science disciplines with 3-5 years' experience or MS with minimum 2 years experience Working experience within technical software development proven by academic, research, or industry projects. Good understanding and skills in object-oriented programming Experience with Java and C# / .NET Role can be remote, must be based on the East Coast due to timezone Preferred Qualifications and Skills Experience with C++, Python, in addition to Java and C# / .NET Knowledge of Task-Based Asynchronous design patternExposure to model-based systems engineering concepts Working knowledge of SysML Know-how on cloud computing technologies like micro-service architectures, RPC frameworks, REST APIs, etc. Knowledge of software security best practices Experience working on an Agile software development team Technical knowledge and experience with various engineering tools and methodologies, such as Finite Element simulation, CAD modeling, and Systems Architecture modelling is a plus Ability to assist more junior developers on an as-needed basis Ability to learn quickly and to collaborate with others in a geographically distributed team Excellent communication and interpersonal skills At Ansys, we know that changing the world takes vision, skill, and each other. We fuel new ideas, build relationships, and help each other realize our greatest potential. We are ONE Ansys. We operate on three key components: our commitments to stakeholders, our values that guide how we work together, and our actions to deliver results. As ONE Ansys, we are powering innovation that drives human advancement Our Commitments:Amaze with innovative products and solutionsMake our customers incredibly successfulAct with integrityEnsure employees thrive and shareholders prosper Our Values:Adaptability: Be open, welcome what's nextCourage: Be courageous, move forward passionatelyGenerosity: Be generous, share, listen, serveAuthenticity: Be you, make us stronger Our Actions:We commit to audacious goalsWe work seamlessly as a teamWe demonstrate masteryWe deliver outstanding resultsVALUES IN ACTION Ansys is committed to powering the people who power human advancement. We believe in creating and nurturing a workplace that supports and welcomes people of all backgrounds; encouraging them to bring their talents and experience to a workplace where they are valued and can thrive. Our culture is grounded in our four core values of adaptability, courage, generosity, and authenticity. Through our behaviors and actions, these values foster higher team performance and greater innovation for our customers. We're proud to offer programs, available to all employees, to further impact innovation and business outcomes, such as employee networks and learning communities that inform solutions for our globally minded customer base. WELCOME WHAT'S NEXT IN YOUR CAREER AT ANSYS At Ansys, you will find yourself among the sharpest minds and most visionary leaders across the globe. Collectively, we strive to change the world with innovative technology and transformational solutions. With a prestigious reputation in working with well-known, world-class companies, standards at Ansys are high - met by those willing to rise to the occasion and meet those challenges head on. Our team is passionate about pushing the limits of world-class simulation technology, empowering our customers to turn their design concepts into successful, innovative products faster and at a lower cost. Ready to feel inspired? Check out some of our recent customer stories, here and here . At Ansys, it's about the learning, the discovery, and the collaboration. It's about the "what's next" as much as the "mission accomplished." And it's about the melding of disciplined intellect with strategic direction and results that have, can, and do impact real people in real ways. All this is forged within a working environment built on respect, autonomy, and ethics.CREATING A PLACE WE'RE PROUD TO BEAnsys is an S&P 500 company and a member of the NASDAQ-100. We are proud to have been recognized for the following more recent awards, although our list goes on: Newsweek's Most Loved Workplace globally and in the U.S., Gold Stevie Award Winner, America's Most Responsible Companies, Fast Company World Changing Ideas, Great Place to Work Certified.For more information, please visit us at Ansys is an Equal Opportunity Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, veteran status, and other protected characteristics.Ansys does not accept unsolicited referrals for vacancies, and any unsolicited referral will become the property of Ansys. Upon hire, no fee will be owed to the agency, person, or entity.Apply NowLet's start your dream job Apply now Meet JobCopilot: Your Personal AI Job HunterAutomatically Apply to Remote Full-Stack Programming JobsJust set your preferences and Job Copilot will do the rest-finding, filtering, and applying while you focus on what matters. Activate JobCopilot #ansys #rampampd #engineer #remote #east
    WEWORKREMOTELY.COM
    Ansys: R&D Engineer II (Remote - East Coast, US)
    Requisition #: 16890 Our Mission: Powering Innovation That Drives Human Advancement When visionary companies need to know how their world-changing ideas will perform, they close the gap between design and reality with Ansys simulation. For more than 50 years, Ansys software has enabled innovators across industries to push boundaries by using the predictive power of simulation. From sustainable transportation to advanced semiconductors, from satellite systems to life-saving medical devices, the next great leaps in human advancement will be powered by Ansys. Innovate With Ansys, Power Your Career. Summary / Role Purpose The R&D Engineer II contributes to the development of software products and supporting systems. In this role, the R&D Engineer II will collaborate with a team of expert professionals to understand customer requirements and accomplish development objectives. Key Duties and Responsibilities Performs moderately complex development activities, including the design, implementation, maintenance, testing and documentation of software modules and sub-systems Understands and employs best practices Performs moderately complex bug verification, release testing and beta support for assigned products. Researches problems discovered by QA or product support and develops solutions Understands the marketing requirements for a product, including target environment, performance criteria and competitive issues Works under the general supervision of a development manager Minimum Education/Certification Requirements and Experience BS in Computer Science, Applied Mathematics, Engineering, or other natural science disciplines with 3-5 years' experience or MS with minimum 2 years experience Working experience within technical software development proven by academic, research, or industry projects. Good understanding and skills in object-oriented programming Experience with Java and C# / .NET Role can be remote, must be based on the East Coast due to timezone Preferred Qualifications and Skills Experience with C++, Python, in addition to Java and C# / .NET Knowledge of Task-Based Asynchronous design pattern (TAP) Exposure to model-based systems engineering concepts Working knowledge of SysML Know-how on cloud computing technologies like micro-service architectures, RPC frameworks (e.g., gRPC), REST APIs, etc. Knowledge of software security best practices Experience working on an Agile software development team Technical knowledge and experience with various engineering tools and methodologies, such as Finite Element simulation, CAD modeling, and Systems Architecture modelling is a plus Ability to assist more junior developers on an as-needed basis Ability to learn quickly and to collaborate with others in a geographically distributed team Excellent communication and interpersonal skills At Ansys, we know that changing the world takes vision, skill, and each other. We fuel new ideas, build relationships, and help each other realize our greatest potential. We are ONE Ansys. We operate on three key components: our commitments to stakeholders, our values that guide how we work together, and our actions to deliver results. As ONE Ansys, we are powering innovation that drives human advancement Our Commitments:Amaze with innovative products and solutionsMake our customers incredibly successfulAct with integrityEnsure employees thrive and shareholders prosper Our Values:Adaptability: Be open, welcome what's nextCourage: Be courageous, move forward passionatelyGenerosity: Be generous, share, listen, serveAuthenticity: Be you, make us stronger Our Actions:We commit to audacious goalsWe work seamlessly as a teamWe demonstrate masteryWe deliver outstanding resultsVALUES IN ACTION Ansys is committed to powering the people who power human advancement. We believe in creating and nurturing a workplace that supports and welcomes people of all backgrounds; encouraging them to bring their talents and experience to a workplace where they are valued and can thrive. Our culture is grounded in our four core values of adaptability, courage, generosity, and authenticity. Through our behaviors and actions, these values foster higher team performance and greater innovation for our customers. We're proud to offer programs, available to all employees, to further impact innovation and business outcomes, such as employee networks and learning communities that inform solutions for our globally minded customer base. WELCOME WHAT'S NEXT IN YOUR CAREER AT ANSYS At Ansys, you will find yourself among the sharpest minds and most visionary leaders across the globe. Collectively, we strive to change the world with innovative technology and transformational solutions. With a prestigious reputation in working with well-known, world-class companies, standards at Ansys are high - met by those willing to rise to the occasion and meet those challenges head on. Our team is passionate about pushing the limits of world-class simulation technology, empowering our customers to turn their design concepts into successful, innovative products faster and at a lower cost. Ready to feel inspired? Check out some of our recent customer stories, here and here . At Ansys, it's about the learning, the discovery, and the collaboration. It's about the "what's next" as much as the "mission accomplished." And it's about the melding of disciplined intellect with strategic direction and results that have, can, and do impact real people in real ways. All this is forged within a working environment built on respect, autonomy, and ethics.CREATING A PLACE WE'RE PROUD TO BEAnsys is an S&P 500 company and a member of the NASDAQ-100. We are proud to have been recognized for the following more recent awards, although our list goes on: Newsweek's Most Loved Workplace globally and in the U.S., Gold Stevie Award Winner, America's Most Responsible Companies, Fast Company World Changing Ideas, Great Place to Work Certified (China, Greece, France, India, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and U.K.).For more information, please visit us at Ansys is an Equal Opportunity Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, veteran status, and other protected characteristics.Ansys does not accept unsolicited referrals for vacancies, and any unsolicited referral will become the property of Ansys. Upon hire, no fee will be owed to the agency, person, or entity.Apply NowLet's start your dream job Apply now Meet JobCopilot: Your Personal AI Job HunterAutomatically Apply to Remote Full-Stack Programming JobsJust set your preferences and Job Copilot will do the rest-finding, filtering, and applying while you focus on what matters. Activate JobCopilot
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    468
    2 Comments 0 Shares
  • Learn GameDev with Unity, Unreal, GameMaker, Blender and C# Humble Bundle

    Learn GameDev with Unity, Unreal, GameMaker, Blender and C# Humble Bundle / News / June 11, 2025 /

    The Learn GameDev with Unity, Godot, Unreal, GameMaker, Blender and C# Humble Bundle from Zenva is now available. Each game engine comes with 5 or more courses covering all aspects of game development. This bundle joins the No-Code No-Problem Develop bundle and the Big Bang Unreal Unity and Godot bundle already live on Humble.
    As with most Humble Bundles, this one is organized into tiers:
    1$ Tier
    Intro to Godot 4 Game DevelopmentIntro to the Game Development Industry
    Makes No Sense Tier
    Explore Audio for Godot 4 Games
    UV Mapping in Blender for Beginners
    UI/UX for Game Design
    25$ Tier
    Godot 4 Mini-ProjectsCreate a Micro Turn-Based RPG in Godot3D Action-Adventure Game in Godot – Unit 1 – Characters
    Intro to Visual Shaders in Godot 4
    Learn Game Optimization for Godot 4
    Coin Collector Game – Godot Mobile Projects
    Unreal Engine Mini-Projects
    Intro to Unreal Engine Game Development
    Create a Racing Game in Unreal Engine
    The Complete Unreal Engine C++ Course – Build an FPS
    Create a Turn-Based Mini RPG in Unreal Engine
    Build a 2.5D Farming RPG with Unreal Engine
    Intro to Game Development with Unity
    Unity Mini-Projects – C# Fundamentals
    Explore Game Optimization in Unity 6
    Intro to ECS for Unity 6
    Build an Arcade Kart Racing Game in Unity
    Construct a Mobile Physics Game in Unity
    Intro to Particle Systems for Unity Games
    Intro to Game Development with GameMaker
    Create a Complete 2D Action RPG in GameMaker
    Build a Real-Time Strategy Mini-Game with GameMaker
    Develop an Idle Clicker from Scratch in GameMaker
    Make a Mini Turn-Based RPG from Scratch in GameMaker
    The Comprehensive Introduction to C# Programming
    Build a Complete Mini 2D Game Engine with C#
    Learn 3D Modeling with Blender from Scratch
    Intro to Rigging Models in Blender
    MagicaVoxel for Beginners – Create Voxel Game Assets
    Prompt Engineering for Game Developers
    You can learn more about the Learn GameDev with Unity, Godot, Unreal, GameMaker, Blender and C# Humble Bundle in the video below. Using links on this page to purchase the bundle helps support GFS
    #learn #gamedev #with #unity #unreal
    Learn GameDev with Unity, Unreal, GameMaker, Blender and C# Humble Bundle
    Learn GameDev with Unity, Unreal, GameMaker, Blender and C# Humble Bundle / News / June 11, 2025 / The Learn GameDev with Unity, Godot, Unreal, GameMaker, Blender and C# Humble Bundle from Zenva is now available. Each game engine comes with 5 or more courses covering all aspects of game development. This bundle joins the No-Code No-Problem Develop bundle and the Big Bang Unreal Unity and Godot bundle already live on Humble. As with most Humble Bundles, this one is organized into tiers: 1$ Tier Intro to Godot 4 Game DevelopmentIntro to the Game Development Industry Makes No Sense Tier Explore Audio for Godot 4 Games UV Mapping in Blender for Beginners UI/UX for Game Design 25$ Tier Godot 4 Mini-ProjectsCreate a Micro Turn-Based RPG in Godot3D Action-Adventure Game in Godot – Unit 1 – Characters Intro to Visual Shaders in Godot 4 Learn Game Optimization for Godot 4 Coin Collector Game – Godot Mobile Projects Unreal Engine Mini-Projects Intro to Unreal Engine Game Development Create a Racing Game in Unreal Engine The Complete Unreal Engine C++ Course – Build an FPS Create a Turn-Based Mini RPG in Unreal Engine Build a 2.5D Farming RPG with Unreal Engine Intro to Game Development with Unity Unity Mini-Projects – C# Fundamentals Explore Game Optimization in Unity 6 Intro to ECS for Unity 6 Build an Arcade Kart Racing Game in Unity Construct a Mobile Physics Game in Unity Intro to Particle Systems for Unity Games Intro to Game Development with GameMaker Create a Complete 2D Action RPG in GameMaker Build a Real-Time Strategy Mini-Game with GameMaker Develop an Idle Clicker from Scratch in GameMaker Make a Mini Turn-Based RPG from Scratch in GameMaker The Comprehensive Introduction to C# Programming Build a Complete Mini 2D Game Engine with C# Learn 3D Modeling with Blender from Scratch Intro to Rigging Models in Blender MagicaVoxel for Beginners – Create Voxel Game Assets Prompt Engineering for Game Developers You can learn more about the Learn GameDev with Unity, Godot, Unreal, GameMaker, Blender and C# Humble Bundle in the video below. Using links on this page to purchase the bundle helps support GFS #learn #gamedev #with #unity #unreal
    GAMEFROMSCRATCH.COM
    Learn GameDev with Unity, Unreal, GameMaker, Blender and C# Humble Bundle
    Learn GameDev with Unity, Unreal, GameMaker, Blender and C# Humble Bundle / News / June 11, 2025 / The Learn GameDev with Unity, Godot, Unreal, GameMaker, Blender and C# Humble Bundle from Zenva is now available. Each game engine comes with 5 or more courses covering all aspects of game development. This bundle joins the No-Code No-Problem Develop bundle and the Big Bang Unreal Unity and Godot bundle already live on Humble. As with most Humble Bundles, this one is organized into tiers: 1$ Tier Intro to Godot 4 Game Development (2025 Edition) Intro to the Game Development Industry Makes No Sense Tier Explore Audio for Godot 4 Games UV Mapping in Blender for Beginners UI/UX for Game Design 25$ Tier Godot 4 Mini-Projects (2025 Edition) Create a Micro Turn-Based RPG in Godot (2025 Edition) 3D Action-Adventure Game in Godot – Unit 1 – Characters Intro to Visual Shaders in Godot 4 Learn Game Optimization for Godot 4 Coin Collector Game – Godot Mobile Projects Unreal Engine Mini-Projects Intro to Unreal Engine Game Development Create a Racing Game in Unreal Engine The Complete Unreal Engine C++ Course – Build an FPS Create a Turn-Based Mini RPG in Unreal Engine Build a 2.5D Farming RPG with Unreal Engine Intro to Game Development with Unity Unity Mini-Projects – C# Fundamentals Explore Game Optimization in Unity 6 Intro to ECS for Unity 6 Build an Arcade Kart Racing Game in Unity Construct a Mobile Physics Game in Unity Intro to Particle Systems for Unity Games Intro to Game Development with GameMaker Create a Complete 2D Action RPG in GameMaker Build a Real-Time Strategy Mini-Game with GameMaker Develop an Idle Clicker from Scratch in GameMaker Make a Mini Turn-Based RPG from Scratch in GameMaker The Comprehensive Introduction to C# Programming Build a Complete Mini 2D Game Engine with C# Learn 3D Modeling with Blender from Scratch Intro to Rigging Models in Blender MagicaVoxel for Beginners – Create Voxel Game Assets Prompt Engineering for Game Developers You can learn more about the Learn GameDev with Unity, Godot, Unreal, GameMaker, Blender and C# Humble Bundle in the video below. Using links on this page to purchase the bundle helps support GFS (and thanks so much if you do!)
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    488
    2 Comments 0 Shares
  • Python Creator Guido van Rossum Asks: Is 'Worse is Better' Still True for Programming Languages?

    In 1989 a computer scientist argued that more functionality in software actually lowers usability and practicality — leading to the counterintuitive proposition that "worse is better". But is that still true?

    Python's original creator Guido van Rossum addressed the question last month in a lightning talk at the annual Python Language Summit 2025.

    Guido started by recounting earlier periods of Python development from 35 years ago, where he used UNIX "almost exclusively" and thus "Python was greatly influenced by UNIX's 'worse is better' philosophy"... "The fact thatwasn't perfect encouraged many people to start contributing. All of the code was straightforward, there were no thoughts of optimization... These early contributors also now had a stake in the language;was also their baby"...

    Guido contrasted early development to how Python is developed now: "features that take years to produce from teams of software developers paid by big tech companies. The static type system requires an academic-level understanding of esoteric type system features." And this isn't just Python the language, "third-party projects like numpy are maintained by folks who are paid full-time to do so.... Now we have a huge community, but very few people, relatively speaking, are contributing meaningfully."
    Guido asked whether the expectation for Python contributors going forward would be that "you had to write a perfect PEP or create a perfect prototype that can be turned into production-ready code?" Guido pined for the "old days" where feature development could skip performance or feature-completion to get something into the hands of the community to "start kicking the tires". "Do we have to abandon 'worse is better' as a philosophy and try to make everything as perfect as possible?" Guido thought doing so "would be a shame", but that he "wasn't sure how to change it", acknowledging that core developers wouldn't want to create features and then break users with future releases.
    Guido referenced David Hewitt's PyO3 talk about Rust and Python, and that development "was using worse is better," where there is a core feature set that works, and plenty of work to be done and open questions. "That sounds a lot more fun than working on core CPython", Guido paused, "...not that I'd ever personally learn Rust. Maybe I should give it a try after," which garnered laughter from core developers.

    "Maybe we should do more of that: allowing contributors in the community to have a stake and care".

    of this story at Slashdot.
    #python #creator #guido #van #rossum
    Python Creator Guido van Rossum Asks: Is 'Worse is Better' Still True for Programming Languages?
    In 1989 a computer scientist argued that more functionality in software actually lowers usability and practicality — leading to the counterintuitive proposition that "worse is better". But is that still true? Python's original creator Guido van Rossum addressed the question last month in a lightning talk at the annual Python Language Summit 2025. Guido started by recounting earlier periods of Python development from 35 years ago, where he used UNIX "almost exclusively" and thus "Python was greatly influenced by UNIX's 'worse is better' philosophy"... "The fact thatwasn't perfect encouraged many people to start contributing. All of the code was straightforward, there were no thoughts of optimization... These early contributors also now had a stake in the language;was also their baby"... Guido contrasted early development to how Python is developed now: "features that take years to produce from teams of software developers paid by big tech companies. The static type system requires an academic-level understanding of esoteric type system features." And this isn't just Python the language, "third-party projects like numpy are maintained by folks who are paid full-time to do so.... Now we have a huge community, but very few people, relatively speaking, are contributing meaningfully." Guido asked whether the expectation for Python contributors going forward would be that "you had to write a perfect PEP or create a perfect prototype that can be turned into production-ready code?" Guido pined for the "old days" where feature development could skip performance or feature-completion to get something into the hands of the community to "start kicking the tires". "Do we have to abandon 'worse is better' as a philosophy and try to make everything as perfect as possible?" Guido thought doing so "would be a shame", but that he "wasn't sure how to change it", acknowledging that core developers wouldn't want to create features and then break users with future releases. Guido referenced David Hewitt's PyO3 talk about Rust and Python, and that development "was using worse is better," where there is a core feature set that works, and plenty of work to be done and open questions. "That sounds a lot more fun than working on core CPython", Guido paused, "...not that I'd ever personally learn Rust. Maybe I should give it a try after," which garnered laughter from core developers. "Maybe we should do more of that: allowing contributors in the community to have a stake and care". of this story at Slashdot. #python #creator #guido #van #rossum
    DEVELOPERS.SLASHDOT.ORG
    Python Creator Guido van Rossum Asks: Is 'Worse is Better' Still True for Programming Languages?
    In 1989 a computer scientist argued that more functionality in software actually lowers usability and practicality — leading to the counterintuitive proposition that "worse is better". But is that still true? Python's original creator Guido van Rossum addressed the question last month in a lightning talk at the annual Python Language Summit 2025. Guido started by recounting earlier periods of Python development from 35 years ago, where he used UNIX "almost exclusively" and thus "Python was greatly influenced by UNIX's 'worse is better' philosophy"... "The fact that [Python] wasn't perfect encouraged many people to start contributing. All of the code was straightforward, there were no thoughts of optimization... These early contributors also now had a stake in the language; [Python] was also their baby"... Guido contrasted early development to how Python is developed now: "features that take years to produce from teams of software developers paid by big tech companies. The static type system requires an academic-level understanding of esoteric type system features." And this isn't just Python the language, "third-party projects like numpy are maintained by folks who are paid full-time to do so.... Now we have a huge community, but very few people, relatively speaking, are contributing meaningfully." Guido asked whether the expectation for Python contributors going forward would be that "you had to write a perfect PEP or create a perfect prototype that can be turned into production-ready code?" Guido pined for the "old days" where feature development could skip performance or feature-completion to get something into the hands of the community to "start kicking the tires". "Do we have to abandon 'worse is better' as a philosophy and try to make everything as perfect as possible?" Guido thought doing so "would be a shame", but that he "wasn't sure how to change it", acknowledging that core developers wouldn't want to create features and then break users with future releases. Guido referenced David Hewitt's PyO3 talk about Rust and Python, and that development "was using worse is better," where there is a core feature set that works, and plenty of work to be done and open questions. "That sounds a lot more fun than working on core CPython", Guido paused, "...not that I'd ever personally learn Rust. Maybe I should give it a try after," which garnered laughter from core developers. "Maybe we should do more of that: allowing contributors in the community to have a stake and care". Read more of this story at Slashdot.
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • How to Implement Insertion Sort in Java: Step-by-Step Guide

    Posted on : June 13, 2025

    By

    Tech World Times

    Uncategorized 

    Rate this post

    Sorting is important in programming. It helps organize data. Sorting improves performance in searching, analysis, and reporting. There are many sorting algorithms. One of the simplest is Insertion Sort.
    In this article, we will learn how to implement Insertion Sort in Java. We will explain each step in simple words. You will see examples and understand how it works.
    What Is Insertion Sort?
    Insertion Sort is a simple sorting algorithm. It works like how you sort playing cards. You take one card at a time and place it in the right position. It compares the current element with those before it. If needed, it shifts elements to the right. Then, it inserts the current element at the correct place.
    How Insertion Sort Works
    Let’s understand with a small list:
    Example List:Steps:

    First elementis already sorted.
    Compare 3 with 8. Move 8 right. Insert 3 before it →Compare 5 with 8. Move 8 right. Insert 5 after 3 →Compare 1 with 8, 5, 3. Move them right. Insert 1 at start →Now the list is sorted!
    Why Use Insertion Sort?
    Insertion Sort is simple and easy to code. It works well for:

    Small datasets
    Nearly sorted lists
    Educational purposes and practice

    However, it is not good for large datasets. It has a time complexity of O.
    Time Complexity of Insertion Sort

    Best Case: OAverage Case: OWorst Case: OIt performs fewer steps in nearly sorted data.
    How to Implement Insertion Sort in Java
    Now let’s write the code for Insertion Sort in Java. We will explain each part.
    Step 1: Define a Class
    javaCopyEditpublic class InsertionSortExample {
    // Code goes here
    }

    We create a class named InsertionSortExample.
    Step 2: Create the Sorting Method
    javaCopyEditpublic static void insertionSort{
    int n = arr.length;
    for{
    int key = arr;
    int j = i - 1;

    while{
    arr= arr;
    j = j - 1;
    }
    arr= key;
    }
    }

    Let’s break it down:

    arris the current value.
    j starts from the previous index.
    While arr> key, shift arrto the right.
    Insert the key at the correct position.

    This logic sorts the array step by step.
    Step 3: Create the Main Method
    Now we test the code.
    javaCopyEditpublic static void main{
    intnumbers = {9, 5, 1, 4, 3};

    System.out.println;
    printArray;

    insertionSort;

    System.out.println;
    printArray;
    }

    This method:

    Creates an array of numbers
    Prints the array before sorting
    Calls the sort method
    Prints the array after sorting

    Step 4: Print the Array
    Let’s add a helper method to print the array.
    javaCopyEditpublic static void printArray{
    for{
    System.out.print;
    }
    System.out.println;
    }

    Now you can see how the array changes before and after sorting.
    Full Code Example
    javaCopyEditpublic class InsertionSortExample {

    public static void insertionSort{
    int n = arr.length;
    for{
    int key = arr;
    int j = i - 1;

    while{
    arr= arr;
    j = j - 1;
    }
    arr= key;
    }
    }

    public static void printArray{
    for{
    System.out.print;
    }
    System.out.println;
    }

    public static void main{
    intnumbers = {9, 5, 1, 4, 3};

    System.out.println;
    printArray;

    insertionSort;

    System.out.println;
    printArray;
    }
    }

    Sample Output
    yamlCopyEditBefore sorting:
    9 5 1 4 3
    After sorting:
    1 3 4 5 9

    This confirms that the sorting works correctly.
    Advantages of Insertion Sort in Java

    Easy to implement
    Works well with small inputs
    Stable sortGood for educational use

    When Not to Use Insertion Sort
    Avoid Insertion Sort when:

    The dataset is large
    Performance is critical
    Better algorithms like Merge Sort or Quick Sort are available

    Real-World Uses

    Sorting small records in a database
    Teaching algorithm basics
    Handling partially sorted arrays

    Even though it is not the fastest, it is useful in many simple tasks.
    Final Tips

    Practice with different inputs
    Add print statements to see how it works
    Try sorting strings or objects
    Use Java’s built-in sort methods for large arrays

    Conclusion
    Insertion Sort in Java is a great way to learn sorting. It is simple and easy to understand. In this guide, we showed how to implement it step-by-step. We covered the logic, code, and output. We also explained when to use it. Now you can try it yourself. Understanding sorting helps in coding interviews and software development. Keep practicing and exploring other sorting methods too. The more you practice, the better you understand algorithms.
    Tech World TimesTech World Times, a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com
    #how #implement #insertion #sort #java
    How to Implement Insertion Sort in Java: Step-by-Step Guide
    Posted on : June 13, 2025 By Tech World Times Uncategorized  Rate this post Sorting is important in programming. It helps organize data. Sorting improves performance in searching, analysis, and reporting. There are many sorting algorithms. One of the simplest is Insertion Sort. In this article, we will learn how to implement Insertion Sort in Java. We will explain each step in simple words. You will see examples and understand how it works. What Is Insertion Sort? Insertion Sort is a simple sorting algorithm. It works like how you sort playing cards. You take one card at a time and place it in the right position. It compares the current element with those before it. If needed, it shifts elements to the right. Then, it inserts the current element at the correct place. How Insertion Sort Works Let’s understand with a small list: Example List:Steps: First elementis already sorted. Compare 3 with 8. Move 8 right. Insert 3 before it →Compare 5 with 8. Move 8 right. Insert 5 after 3 →Compare 1 with 8, 5, 3. Move them right. Insert 1 at start →Now the list is sorted! Why Use Insertion Sort? Insertion Sort is simple and easy to code. It works well for: Small datasets Nearly sorted lists Educational purposes and practice However, it is not good for large datasets. It has a time complexity of O. Time Complexity of Insertion Sort Best Case: OAverage Case: OWorst Case: OIt performs fewer steps in nearly sorted data. How to Implement Insertion Sort in Java Now let’s write the code for Insertion Sort in Java. We will explain each part. Step 1: Define a Class javaCopyEditpublic class InsertionSortExample { // Code goes here } We create a class named InsertionSortExample. Step 2: Create the Sorting Method javaCopyEditpublic static void insertionSort{ int n = arr.length; for{ int key = arr; int j = i - 1; while{ arr= arr; j = j - 1; } arr= key; } } Let’s break it down: arris the current value. j starts from the previous index. While arr> key, shift arrto the right. Insert the key at the correct position. This logic sorts the array step by step. Step 3: Create the Main Method Now we test the code. javaCopyEditpublic static void main{ intnumbers = {9, 5, 1, 4, 3}; System.out.println; printArray; insertionSort; System.out.println; printArray; } This method: Creates an array of numbers Prints the array before sorting Calls the sort method Prints the array after sorting Step 4: Print the Array Let’s add a helper method to print the array. javaCopyEditpublic static void printArray{ for{ System.out.print; } System.out.println; } Now you can see how the array changes before and after sorting. Full Code Example javaCopyEditpublic class InsertionSortExample { public static void insertionSort{ int n = arr.length; for{ int key = arr; int j = i - 1; while{ arr= arr; j = j - 1; } arr= key; } } public static void printArray{ for{ System.out.print; } System.out.println; } public static void main{ intnumbers = {9, 5, 1, 4, 3}; System.out.println; printArray; insertionSort; System.out.println; printArray; } } Sample Output yamlCopyEditBefore sorting: 9 5 1 4 3 After sorting: 1 3 4 5 9 This confirms that the sorting works correctly. Advantages of Insertion Sort in Java Easy to implement Works well with small inputs Stable sortGood for educational use When Not to Use Insertion Sort Avoid Insertion Sort when: The dataset is large Performance is critical Better algorithms like Merge Sort or Quick Sort are available Real-World Uses Sorting small records in a database Teaching algorithm basics Handling partially sorted arrays Even though it is not the fastest, it is useful in many simple tasks. Final Tips Practice with different inputs Add print statements to see how it works Try sorting strings or objects Use Java’s built-in sort methods for large arrays Conclusion Insertion Sort in Java is a great way to learn sorting. It is simple and easy to understand. In this guide, we showed how to implement it step-by-step. We covered the logic, code, and output. We also explained when to use it. Now you can try it yourself. Understanding sorting helps in coding interviews and software development. Keep practicing and exploring other sorting methods too. The more you practice, the better you understand algorithms. Tech World TimesTech World Times, a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com #how #implement #insertion #sort #java
    TECHWORLDTIMES.COM
    How to Implement Insertion Sort in Java: Step-by-Step Guide
    Posted on : June 13, 2025 By Tech World Times Uncategorized  Rate this post Sorting is important in programming. It helps organize data. Sorting improves performance in searching, analysis, and reporting. There are many sorting algorithms. One of the simplest is Insertion Sort. In this article, we will learn how to implement Insertion Sort in Java. We will explain each step in simple words. You will see examples and understand how it works. What Is Insertion Sort? Insertion Sort is a simple sorting algorithm. It works like how you sort playing cards. You take one card at a time and place it in the right position. It compares the current element with those before it. If needed, it shifts elements to the right. Then, it inserts the current element at the correct place. How Insertion Sort Works Let’s understand with a small list: Example List: [8, 3, 5, 1] Steps: First element (8) is already sorted. Compare 3 with 8. Move 8 right. Insert 3 before it → [3, 8, 5, 1] Compare 5 with 8. Move 8 right. Insert 5 after 3 → [3, 5, 8, 1] Compare 1 with 8, 5, 3. Move them right. Insert 1 at start → [1, 3, 5, 8] Now the list is sorted! Why Use Insertion Sort? Insertion Sort is simple and easy to code. It works well for: Small datasets Nearly sorted lists Educational purposes and practice However, it is not good for large datasets. It has a time complexity of O(n²). Time Complexity of Insertion Sort Best Case (already sorted): O(n) Average Case: O(n²) Worst Case (reversed list): O(n²) It performs fewer steps in nearly sorted data. How to Implement Insertion Sort in Java Now let’s write the code for Insertion Sort in Java. We will explain each part. Step 1: Define a Class javaCopyEditpublic class InsertionSortExample { // Code goes here } We create a class named InsertionSortExample. Step 2: Create the Sorting Method javaCopyEditpublic static void insertionSort(int[] arr) { int n = arr.length; for (int i = 1; i < n; i++) { int key = arr[i]; int j = i - 1; while (j >= 0 && arr[j] > key) { arr[j + 1] = arr[j]; j = j - 1; } arr[j + 1] = key; } } Let’s break it down: arr[i] is the current value (called key). j starts from the previous index. While arr[j] > key, shift arr[j] to the right. Insert the key at the correct position. This logic sorts the array step by step. Step 3: Create the Main Method Now we test the code. javaCopyEditpublic static void main(String[] args) { int[] numbers = {9, 5, 1, 4, 3}; System.out.println("Before sorting:"); printArray(numbers); insertionSort(numbers); System.out.println("After sorting:"); printArray(numbers); } This method: Creates an array of numbers Prints the array before sorting Calls the sort method Prints the array after sorting Step 4: Print the Array Let’s add a helper method to print the array. javaCopyEditpublic static void printArray(int[] arr) { for (int number : arr) { System.out.print(number + " "); } System.out.println(); } Now you can see how the array changes before and after sorting. Full Code Example javaCopyEditpublic class InsertionSortExample { public static void insertionSort(int[] arr) { int n = arr.length; for (int i = 1; i < n; i++) { int key = arr[i]; int j = i - 1; while (j >= 0 && arr[j] > key) { arr[j + 1] = arr[j]; j = j - 1; } arr[j + 1] = key; } } public static void printArray(int[] arr) { for (int number : arr) { System.out.print(number + " "); } System.out.println(); } public static void main(String[] args) { int[] numbers = {9, 5, 1, 4, 3}; System.out.println("Before sorting:"); printArray(numbers); insertionSort(numbers); System.out.println("After sorting:"); printArray(numbers); } } Sample Output yamlCopyEditBefore sorting: 9 5 1 4 3 After sorting: 1 3 4 5 9 This confirms that the sorting works correctly. Advantages of Insertion Sort in Java Easy to implement Works well with small inputs Stable sort (keeps equal items in order) Good for educational use When Not to Use Insertion Sort Avoid Insertion Sort when: The dataset is large Performance is critical Better algorithms like Merge Sort or Quick Sort are available Real-World Uses Sorting small records in a database Teaching algorithm basics Handling partially sorted arrays Even though it is not the fastest, it is useful in many simple tasks. Final Tips Practice with different inputs Add print statements to see how it works Try sorting strings or objects Use Java’s built-in sort methods for large arrays Conclusion Insertion Sort in Java is a great way to learn sorting. It is simple and easy to understand. In this guide, we showed how to implement it step-by-step. We covered the logic, code, and output. We also explained when to use it. Now you can try it yourself. Understanding sorting helps in coding interviews and software development. Keep practicing and exploring other sorting methods too. The more you practice, the better you understand algorithms. Tech World TimesTech World Times (TWT), a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Rewriting SymCrypt in Rust to modernize Microsoft’s cryptographic library 

    Outdated coding practices and memory-unsafe languages like C are putting software, including cryptographic libraries, at risk. Fortunately, memory-safe languages like Rust, along with formal verification tools, are now mature enough to be used at scale, helping prevent issues like crashes, data corruption, flawed implementation, and side-channel attacks.
    To address these vulnerabilities and improve memory safety, we’re rewriting SymCrypt—Microsoft’s open-source cryptographic library—in Rust. We’re also incorporating formal verification methods. SymCrypt is used in Windows, Azure Linux, Xbox, and other platforms.
    Currently, SymCrypt is primarily written in cross-platform C, with limited use of hardware-specific optimizations through intrinsicsand assembly language. It provides a wide range of algorithms, including AES-GCM, SHA, ECDSA, and the more recent post-quantum algorithms ML-KEM and ML-DSA. 
    Formal verification will confirm that implementations behave as intended and don’t deviate from algorithm specifications, critical for preventing attacks. We’ll also analyze compiled code to detect side-channel leaks caused by timing or hardware-level behavior.
    Proving Rust program properties with Aeneas
    Program verification is the process of proving that a piece of code will always satisfy a given property, no matter the input. Rust’s type system profoundly improves the prospects for program verification by providing strong ownership guarantees, by construction, using a discipline known as “aliasing xor mutability”.
    For example, reasoning about C code often requires proving that two non-const pointers are live and non-overlapping, a property that can depend on external client code. In contrast, Rust’s type system guarantees this property for any two mutably borrowed references.
    As a result, new tools have emerged specifically for verifying Rust code. We chose Aeneasbecause it helps provide a clean separation between code and proofs.
    Developed by Microsoft Azure Research in partnership with Inria, the French National Institute for Research in Digital Science and Technology, Aeneas connects to proof assistants like Lean, allowing us to draw on a large body of mathematical proofs—especially valuable given the mathematical nature of cryptographic algorithms—and benefit from Lean’s active user community.
    Compiling Rust to C supports backward compatibility  
    We recognize that switching to Rust isn’t feasible for all use cases, so we’ll continue to support, extend, and certify C-based APIs as long as users need them. Users won’t see any changes, as Rust runs underneath the existing C APIs.
    Some users compile our C code directly and may rely on specific toolchains or compiler features that complicate the adoption of Rust code. To address this, we will use Eurydice, a Rust-to-C compiler developed by Microsoft Azure Research, to replace handwritten C code with C generated from formally verified Rust. Eurydicecompiles directly from Rust’s MIR intermediate language, and the resulting C code will be checked into the SymCrypt repository alongside the original Rust source code.
    As more users adopt Rust, we’ll continue supporting this compilation path for those who build SymCrypt from source code but aren’t ready to use the Rust compiler. In the long term, we hope to transition users to either use precompiled SymCrypt binaries, or compile from source code in Rust, at which point the Rust-to-C compilation path will no longer be needed.

    Microsoft research podcast

    Ideas: AI and democracy with Madeleine Daepp and Robert Osazuwa Ness
    As the “biggest election year in history” comes to an end, researchers Madeleine Daepp and Robert Osazuwa Ness and Democracy Forward GM Ginny Badanes discuss AI’s impact on democracy, including the tech’s use in Taiwan and India.

    Listen now

    Opens in a new tab
    Timing analysis with Revizor 
    Even software that has been verified for functional correctness can remain vulnerable to low-level security threats, such as side channels caused by timing leaks or speculative execution. These threats operate at the hardware level and can leak private information, such as memory load addresses, branch targets, or division operands, even when the source code is provably correct. 
    To address this, we’re extending Revizor, a tool developed by Microsoft Azure Research, to more effectively analyze SymCrypt binaries. Revizor models microarchitectural leakage and uses fuzzing techniques to systematically uncover instructions that may expose private information through known hardware-level effects.  
    Earlier cryptographic libraries relied on constant-time programming to avoid operations on secret data. However, recent research has shown that this alone is insufficient with today’s CPUs, where every new optimization may open a new side channel. 
    By analyzing binary code for specific compilers and platforms, our extended Revizor tool enables deeper scrutiny of vulnerabilities that aren’t visible in the source code.
    Verified Rust implementations begin with ML-KEM
    This long-term effort is in alignment with the Microsoft Secure Future Initiative and brings together experts across Microsoft, building on decades of Microsoft Research investment in program verification and security tooling.
    A preliminary version of ML-KEM in Rust is now available on the preview feature/verifiedcryptobranch of the SymCrypt repository. We encourage users to try the Rust build and share feedback. Looking ahead, we plan to support direct use of the same cryptographic library in Rust without requiring C bindings. 
    Over the coming months, we plan to rewrite, verify, and ship several algorithms in Rust as part of SymCrypt. As our investment in Rust deepens, we expect to gain new insights into how to best leverage the language for high-assurance cryptographic implementations with low-level optimizations. 
    As performance is key to scalability and sustainability, we’re holding new implementations to a high bar using our benchmarking tools to match or exceed existing systems.
    Looking forward 
    This is a pivotal moment for high-assurance software. Microsoft’s investment in Rust and formal verification presents a rare opportunity to advance one of our key libraries. We’re excited to scale this work and ultimately deliver an industrial-grade, Rust-based, FIPS-certified cryptographic library.
    Opens in a new tab
    #rewriting #symcrypt #rust #modernize #microsofts
    Rewriting SymCrypt in Rust to modernize Microsoft’s cryptographic library 
    Outdated coding practices and memory-unsafe languages like C are putting software, including cryptographic libraries, at risk. Fortunately, memory-safe languages like Rust, along with formal verification tools, are now mature enough to be used at scale, helping prevent issues like crashes, data corruption, flawed implementation, and side-channel attacks. To address these vulnerabilities and improve memory safety, we’re rewriting SymCrypt—Microsoft’s open-source cryptographic library—in Rust. We’re also incorporating formal verification methods. SymCrypt is used in Windows, Azure Linux, Xbox, and other platforms. Currently, SymCrypt is primarily written in cross-platform C, with limited use of hardware-specific optimizations through intrinsicsand assembly language. It provides a wide range of algorithms, including AES-GCM, SHA, ECDSA, and the more recent post-quantum algorithms ML-KEM and ML-DSA.  Formal verification will confirm that implementations behave as intended and don’t deviate from algorithm specifications, critical for preventing attacks. We’ll also analyze compiled code to detect side-channel leaks caused by timing or hardware-level behavior. Proving Rust program properties with Aeneas Program verification is the process of proving that a piece of code will always satisfy a given property, no matter the input. Rust’s type system profoundly improves the prospects for program verification by providing strong ownership guarantees, by construction, using a discipline known as “aliasing xor mutability”. For example, reasoning about C code often requires proving that two non-const pointers are live and non-overlapping, a property that can depend on external client code. In contrast, Rust’s type system guarantees this property for any two mutably borrowed references. As a result, new tools have emerged specifically for verifying Rust code. We chose Aeneasbecause it helps provide a clean separation between code and proofs. Developed by Microsoft Azure Research in partnership with Inria, the French National Institute for Research in Digital Science and Technology, Aeneas connects to proof assistants like Lean, allowing us to draw on a large body of mathematical proofs—especially valuable given the mathematical nature of cryptographic algorithms—and benefit from Lean’s active user community. Compiling Rust to C supports backward compatibility   We recognize that switching to Rust isn’t feasible for all use cases, so we’ll continue to support, extend, and certify C-based APIs as long as users need them. Users won’t see any changes, as Rust runs underneath the existing C APIs. Some users compile our C code directly and may rely on specific toolchains or compiler features that complicate the adoption of Rust code. To address this, we will use Eurydice, a Rust-to-C compiler developed by Microsoft Azure Research, to replace handwritten C code with C generated from formally verified Rust. Eurydicecompiles directly from Rust’s MIR intermediate language, and the resulting C code will be checked into the SymCrypt repository alongside the original Rust source code. As more users adopt Rust, we’ll continue supporting this compilation path for those who build SymCrypt from source code but aren’t ready to use the Rust compiler. In the long term, we hope to transition users to either use precompiled SymCrypt binaries, or compile from source code in Rust, at which point the Rust-to-C compilation path will no longer be needed. Microsoft research podcast Ideas: AI and democracy with Madeleine Daepp and Robert Osazuwa Ness As the “biggest election year in history” comes to an end, researchers Madeleine Daepp and Robert Osazuwa Ness and Democracy Forward GM Ginny Badanes discuss AI’s impact on democracy, including the tech’s use in Taiwan and India. Listen now Opens in a new tab Timing analysis with Revizor  Even software that has been verified for functional correctness can remain vulnerable to low-level security threats, such as side channels caused by timing leaks or speculative execution. These threats operate at the hardware level and can leak private information, such as memory load addresses, branch targets, or division operands, even when the source code is provably correct.  To address this, we’re extending Revizor, a tool developed by Microsoft Azure Research, to more effectively analyze SymCrypt binaries. Revizor models microarchitectural leakage and uses fuzzing techniques to systematically uncover instructions that may expose private information through known hardware-level effects.   Earlier cryptographic libraries relied on constant-time programming to avoid operations on secret data. However, recent research has shown that this alone is insufficient with today’s CPUs, where every new optimization may open a new side channel.  By analyzing binary code for specific compilers and platforms, our extended Revizor tool enables deeper scrutiny of vulnerabilities that aren’t visible in the source code. Verified Rust implementations begin with ML-KEM This long-term effort is in alignment with the Microsoft Secure Future Initiative and brings together experts across Microsoft, building on decades of Microsoft Research investment in program verification and security tooling. A preliminary version of ML-KEM in Rust is now available on the preview feature/verifiedcryptobranch of the SymCrypt repository. We encourage users to try the Rust build and share feedback. Looking ahead, we plan to support direct use of the same cryptographic library in Rust without requiring C bindings.  Over the coming months, we plan to rewrite, verify, and ship several algorithms in Rust as part of SymCrypt. As our investment in Rust deepens, we expect to gain new insights into how to best leverage the language for high-assurance cryptographic implementations with low-level optimizations.  As performance is key to scalability and sustainability, we’re holding new implementations to a high bar using our benchmarking tools to match or exceed existing systems. Looking forward  This is a pivotal moment for high-assurance software. Microsoft’s investment in Rust and formal verification presents a rare opportunity to advance one of our key libraries. We’re excited to scale this work and ultimately deliver an industrial-grade, Rust-based, FIPS-certified cryptographic library. Opens in a new tab #rewriting #symcrypt #rust #modernize #microsofts
    WWW.MICROSOFT.COM
    Rewriting SymCrypt in Rust to modernize Microsoft’s cryptographic library 
    Outdated coding practices and memory-unsafe languages like C are putting software, including cryptographic libraries, at risk. Fortunately, memory-safe languages like Rust, along with formal verification tools, are now mature enough to be used at scale, helping prevent issues like crashes, data corruption, flawed implementation, and side-channel attacks. To address these vulnerabilities and improve memory safety, we’re rewriting SymCrypt (opens in new tab)—Microsoft’s open-source cryptographic library—in Rust. We’re also incorporating formal verification methods. SymCrypt is used in Windows, Azure Linux, Xbox, and other platforms. Currently, SymCrypt is primarily written in cross-platform C, with limited use of hardware-specific optimizations through intrinsics (compiler-provided low-level functions) and assembly language (direct processor instructions). It provides a wide range of algorithms, including AES-GCM, SHA, ECDSA, and the more recent post-quantum algorithms ML-KEM and ML-DSA.  Formal verification will confirm that implementations behave as intended and don’t deviate from algorithm specifications, critical for preventing attacks. We’ll also analyze compiled code to detect side-channel leaks caused by timing or hardware-level behavior. Proving Rust program properties with Aeneas Program verification is the process of proving that a piece of code will always satisfy a given property, no matter the input. Rust’s type system profoundly improves the prospects for program verification by providing strong ownership guarantees, by construction, using a discipline known as “aliasing xor mutability”. For example, reasoning about C code often requires proving that two non-const pointers are live and non-overlapping, a property that can depend on external client code. In contrast, Rust’s type system guarantees this property for any two mutably borrowed references. As a result, new tools have emerged specifically for verifying Rust code. We chose Aeneas (opens in new tab) because it helps provide a clean separation between code and proofs. Developed by Microsoft Azure Research in partnership with Inria, the French National Institute for Research in Digital Science and Technology, Aeneas connects to proof assistants like Lean (opens in new tab), allowing us to draw on a large body of mathematical proofs—especially valuable given the mathematical nature of cryptographic algorithms—and benefit from Lean’s active user community. Compiling Rust to C supports backward compatibility   We recognize that switching to Rust isn’t feasible for all use cases, so we’ll continue to support, extend, and certify C-based APIs as long as users need them. Users won’t see any changes, as Rust runs underneath the existing C APIs. Some users compile our C code directly and may rely on specific toolchains or compiler features that complicate the adoption of Rust code. To address this, we will use Eurydice (opens in new tab), a Rust-to-C compiler developed by Microsoft Azure Research, to replace handwritten C code with C generated from formally verified Rust. Eurydice (opens in new tab) compiles directly from Rust’s MIR intermediate language, and the resulting C code will be checked into the SymCrypt repository alongside the original Rust source code. As more users adopt Rust, we’ll continue supporting this compilation path for those who build SymCrypt from source code but aren’t ready to use the Rust compiler. In the long term, we hope to transition users to either use precompiled SymCrypt binaries (via C or Rust APIs), or compile from source code in Rust, at which point the Rust-to-C compilation path will no longer be needed. Microsoft research podcast Ideas: AI and democracy with Madeleine Daepp and Robert Osazuwa Ness As the “biggest election year in history” comes to an end, researchers Madeleine Daepp and Robert Osazuwa Ness and Democracy Forward GM Ginny Badanes discuss AI’s impact on democracy, including the tech’s use in Taiwan and India. Listen now Opens in a new tab Timing analysis with Revizor  Even software that has been verified for functional correctness can remain vulnerable to low-level security threats, such as side channels caused by timing leaks or speculative execution. These threats operate at the hardware level and can leak private information, such as memory load addresses, branch targets, or division operands, even when the source code is provably correct.  To address this, we’re extending Revizor (opens in new tab), a tool developed by Microsoft Azure Research, to more effectively analyze SymCrypt binaries. Revizor models microarchitectural leakage and uses fuzzing techniques to systematically uncover instructions that may expose private information through known hardware-level effects.   Earlier cryptographic libraries relied on constant-time programming to avoid operations on secret data. However, recent research has shown that this alone is insufficient with today’s CPUs, where every new optimization may open a new side channel.  By analyzing binary code for specific compilers and platforms, our extended Revizor tool enables deeper scrutiny of vulnerabilities that aren’t visible in the source code. Verified Rust implementations begin with ML-KEM This long-term effort is in alignment with the Microsoft Secure Future Initiative and brings together experts across Microsoft, building on decades of Microsoft Research investment in program verification and security tooling. A preliminary version of ML-KEM in Rust is now available on the preview feature/verifiedcrypto (opens in new tab) branch of the SymCrypt repository. We encourage users to try the Rust build and share feedback (opens in new tab). Looking ahead, we plan to support direct use of the same cryptographic library in Rust without requiring C bindings.  Over the coming months, we plan to rewrite, verify, and ship several algorithms in Rust as part of SymCrypt. As our investment in Rust deepens, we expect to gain new insights into how to best leverage the language for high-assurance cryptographic implementations with low-level optimizations.  As performance is key to scalability and sustainability, we’re holding new implementations to a high bar using our benchmarking tools to match or exceed existing systems. Looking forward  This is a pivotal moment for high-assurance software. Microsoft’s investment in Rust and formal verification presents a rare opportunity to advance one of our key libraries. We’re excited to scale this work and ultimately deliver an industrial-grade, Rust-based, FIPS-certified cryptographic library. Opens in a new tab
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Selection Sort Time Complexity: Best, Worst, and Average Cases

    Development and Testing 

    Rate this post

    Sorting is a basic task in programming. It arranges data in order. There are many sorting algorithms. Selection Sort is one of the simplest sorting methods. It is easy to understand and code. But it is not the fastest. In this guide, we will explain the Selection Sort Time Complexity. We will cover best, worst, and average cases.
    What Is Selection Sort?
    Selection Sort works by selecting the smallest element from the list. It places it in the correct position. It repeats this process for all elements. One by one, it moves the smallest values to the front.
    Let’s see an example:
    Input:Step 1: Smallest is 2 → swap with 5 →Step 2: Smallest in remaining is 3 → already correctStep 3: Smallest in remaining is 5 → swap with 8 →Now the list is sorted.How Selection Sort Works
    Selection Sort uses two loops. The outer loop moves one index at a time. The inner loop finds the smallest element. After each pass, the smallest value is moved to the front. The position is fixed. Selection Sort does not care if the list is sorted or not. It always does the same steps.
    Selection Sort Algorithm
    Here is the basic algorithm:

    Start from the first element
    Find the smallest in the rest of the list
    Swap it with the current element
    Repeat for each element

    This repeats until all elements are sorted.
    Selection Sort CodejavaCopyEditpublic class SelectionSort {
    public static void sort{
    int n = arr.length;
    for{
    int min = i;
    for{
    if{
    min = j;
    }
    }
    int temp = arr;
    arr= arr;
    arr= temp;
    }
    }
    }

    This code uses two loops. The outer loop runs n-1 times. The inner loop finds the minimum.
    Selection Sort Time Complexity
    Now let’s understand the main topic. Let’s analyze Selection Sort Time Complexity in three cases.
    1. Best Case
    Even if the array is already sorted, Selection Sort checks all elements. It keeps comparing and swapping.

    Time Complexity: OReason: Inner loop runs fully, regardless of the order
    Example Input:Even here, every comparison still happens. Only fewer swaps occur, but comparisons remain the same.
    2. Worst Case
    This happens when the array is in reverse order. But Selection Sort does not optimize for this.

    Time Complexity: OReason: Still needs full comparisons
    Example Input:Even in reverse, the steps are the same. It compares and finds the smallest element every time.
    3. Average Case
    This is when elements are randomly placed. It is the most common scenario in real-world problems.

    Time Complexity: OReason: Still compares each element in the inner loop
    Example Input:Selection Sort does not change behavior based on input order. So the complexity remains the same.
    Why Is It Always O?
    Selection Sort compares all pairs of elements. The number of comparisons does not change.
    Total comparisons = n ×/ 2
    That’s why the time complexity is always O.It does not reduce steps in any case. It does not take advantage of sorted elements.
    Space Complexity
    Selection Sort does not need extra space. It sorts in place.

    Space Complexity: OOnly a few variables are used
    No extra arrays or memory needed

    This is one good point of the Selection Sort.
    Comparison with Other Algorithms
    Let’s compare Selection Sort with other basic sorts:
    AlgorithmBest CaseAverage CaseWorst CaseSpaceSelection SortOOOOBubble SortOOOOInsertion SortOOOOMerge SortOOOOQuick SortOOOOAs you see, Selection Sort is slower than Merge Sort and Quick Sort.
    Advantages of Selection Sort

    Very simple and easy to understand
    Works well with small datasets
    Needs very little memory
    Good for learning purposes

    Disadvantages of Selection Sort

    Slow on large datasets
    Always takes the same time, even if sorted
    Not efficient for real-world use

    When to Use Selection Sort
    Use Selection Sort when:

    You are working with a very small dataset
    You want to teach or learn sorting logic
    You want stable, low-memory sorting

    Avoid it for:

    Large datasets
    Performance-sensitive programs

    Conclusion
    Selection Sort Time Complexity is simple to understand. But it is not efficient for big problems. It always takes Otime, no matter the case. That is the same for best, worst, and average inputs. Still, it is useful in some cases. It’s great for learning sorting basics. It uses very little memory. If you’re working with small arrays, Selection Sort is fine. For large data, use better algorithms. Understanding its time complexity helps you choose the right algorithm. Always pick the tool that fits your task.
    Tech World TimesTech World Times, a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com
    #selection #sort #time #complexity #best
    Selection Sort Time Complexity: Best, Worst, and Average Cases
    Development and Testing  Rate this post Sorting is a basic task in programming. It arranges data in order. There are many sorting algorithms. Selection Sort is one of the simplest sorting methods. It is easy to understand and code. But it is not the fastest. In this guide, we will explain the Selection Sort Time Complexity. We will cover best, worst, and average cases. What Is Selection Sort? Selection Sort works by selecting the smallest element from the list. It places it in the correct position. It repeats this process for all elements. One by one, it moves the smallest values to the front. Let’s see an example: Input:Step 1: Smallest is 2 → swap with 5 →Step 2: Smallest in remaining is 3 → already correctStep 3: Smallest in remaining is 5 → swap with 8 →Now the list is sorted.How Selection Sort Works Selection Sort uses two loops. The outer loop moves one index at a time. The inner loop finds the smallest element. After each pass, the smallest value is moved to the front. The position is fixed. Selection Sort does not care if the list is sorted or not. It always does the same steps. Selection Sort Algorithm Here is the basic algorithm: Start from the first element Find the smallest in the rest of the list Swap it with the current element Repeat for each element This repeats until all elements are sorted. Selection Sort CodejavaCopyEditpublic class SelectionSort { public static void sort{ int n = arr.length; for{ int min = i; for{ if{ min = j; } } int temp = arr; arr= arr; arr= temp; } } } This code uses two loops. The outer loop runs n-1 times. The inner loop finds the minimum. Selection Sort Time Complexity Now let’s understand the main topic. Let’s analyze Selection Sort Time Complexity in three cases. 1. Best Case Even if the array is already sorted, Selection Sort checks all elements. It keeps comparing and swapping. Time Complexity: OReason: Inner loop runs fully, regardless of the order Example Input:Even here, every comparison still happens. Only fewer swaps occur, but comparisons remain the same. 2. Worst Case This happens when the array is in reverse order. But Selection Sort does not optimize for this. Time Complexity: OReason: Still needs full comparisons Example Input:Even in reverse, the steps are the same. It compares and finds the smallest element every time. 3. Average Case This is when elements are randomly placed. It is the most common scenario in real-world problems. Time Complexity: OReason: Still compares each element in the inner loop Example Input:Selection Sort does not change behavior based on input order. So the complexity remains the same. Why Is It Always O? Selection Sort compares all pairs of elements. The number of comparisons does not change. Total comparisons = n ×/ 2 That’s why the time complexity is always O.It does not reduce steps in any case. It does not take advantage of sorted elements. Space Complexity Selection Sort does not need extra space. It sorts in place. Space Complexity: OOnly a few variables are used No extra arrays or memory needed This is one good point of the Selection Sort. Comparison with Other Algorithms Let’s compare Selection Sort with other basic sorts: AlgorithmBest CaseAverage CaseWorst CaseSpaceSelection SortOOOOBubble SortOOOOInsertion SortOOOOMerge SortOOOOQuick SortOOOOAs you see, Selection Sort is slower than Merge Sort and Quick Sort. Advantages of Selection Sort Very simple and easy to understand Works well with small datasets Needs very little memory Good for learning purposes Disadvantages of Selection Sort Slow on large datasets Always takes the same time, even if sorted Not efficient for real-world use When to Use Selection Sort Use Selection Sort when: You are working with a very small dataset You want to teach or learn sorting logic You want stable, low-memory sorting Avoid it for: Large datasets Performance-sensitive programs Conclusion Selection Sort Time Complexity is simple to understand. But it is not efficient for big problems. It always takes Otime, no matter the case. That is the same for best, worst, and average inputs. Still, it is useful in some cases. It’s great for learning sorting basics. It uses very little memory. If you’re working with small arrays, Selection Sort is fine. For large data, use better algorithms. Understanding its time complexity helps you choose the right algorithm. Always pick the tool that fits your task. Tech World TimesTech World Times, a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com #selection #sort #time #complexity #best
    TECHWORLDTIMES.COM
    Selection Sort Time Complexity: Best, Worst, and Average Cases
    Development and Testing  Rate this post Sorting is a basic task in programming. It arranges data in order. There are many sorting algorithms. Selection Sort is one of the simplest sorting methods. It is easy to understand and code. But it is not the fastest. In this guide, we will explain the Selection Sort Time Complexity. We will cover best, worst, and average cases. What Is Selection Sort? Selection Sort works by selecting the smallest element from the list. It places it in the correct position. It repeats this process for all elements. One by one, it moves the smallest values to the front. Let’s see an example: Input: [5, 3, 8, 2]Step 1: Smallest is 2 → swap with 5 → [2, 3, 8, 5]Step 2: Smallest in remaining is 3 → already correctStep 3: Smallest in remaining is 5 → swap with 8 → [2, 3, 5, 8] Now the list is sorted.How Selection Sort Works Selection Sort uses two loops. The outer loop moves one index at a time. The inner loop finds the smallest element. After each pass, the smallest value is moved to the front. The position is fixed. Selection Sort does not care if the list is sorted or not. It always does the same steps. Selection Sort Algorithm Here is the basic algorithm: Start from the first element Find the smallest in the rest of the list Swap it with the current element Repeat for each element This repeats until all elements are sorted. Selection Sort Code (Java Example) javaCopyEditpublic class SelectionSort { public static void sort(int[] arr) { int n = arr.length; for (int i = 0; i < n - 1; i++) { int min = i; for (int j = i + 1; j < n; j++) { if (arr[j] < arr[min]) { min = j; } } int temp = arr[min]; arr[min] = arr[i]; arr[i] = temp; } } } This code uses two loops. The outer loop runs n-1 times. The inner loop finds the minimum. Selection Sort Time Complexity Now let’s understand the main topic. Let’s analyze Selection Sort Time Complexity in three cases. 1. Best Case Even if the array is already sorted, Selection Sort checks all elements. It keeps comparing and swapping. Time Complexity: O(n²) Reason: Inner loop runs fully, regardless of the order Example Input: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Even here, every comparison still happens. Only fewer swaps occur, but comparisons remain the same. 2. Worst Case This happens when the array is in reverse order. But Selection Sort does not optimize for this. Time Complexity: O(n²) Reason: Still needs full comparisons Example Input: [5, 4, 3, 2, 1] Even in reverse, the steps are the same. It compares and finds the smallest element every time. 3. Average Case This is when elements are randomly placed. It is the most common scenario in real-world problems. Time Complexity: O(n²) Reason: Still compares each element in the inner loop Example Input: [3, 1, 4, 2, 5] Selection Sort does not change behavior based on input order. So the complexity remains the same. Why Is It Always O(n²)? Selection Sort compares all pairs of elements. The number of comparisons does not change. Total comparisons = n × (n – 1) / 2 That’s why the time complexity is always O(n²).It does not reduce steps in any case. It does not take advantage of sorted elements. Space Complexity Selection Sort does not need extra space. It sorts in place. Space Complexity: O(1) Only a few variables are used No extra arrays or memory needed This is one good point of the Selection Sort. Comparison with Other Algorithms Let’s compare Selection Sort with other basic sorts: AlgorithmBest CaseAverage CaseWorst CaseSpaceSelection SortO(n²)O(n²)O(n²)O(1)Bubble SortO(n)O(n²)O(n²)O(1)Insertion SortO(n)O(n²)O(n²)O(1)Merge SortO(n log n)O(n log n)O(n log n)O(n)Quick SortO(n log n)O(n log n)O(n²)O(log n) As you see, Selection Sort is slower than Merge Sort and Quick Sort. Advantages of Selection Sort Very simple and easy to understand Works well with small datasets Needs very little memory Good for learning purposes Disadvantages of Selection Sort Slow on large datasets Always takes the same time, even if sorted Not efficient for real-world use When to Use Selection Sort Use Selection Sort when: You are working with a very small dataset You want to teach or learn sorting logic You want stable, low-memory sorting Avoid it for: Large datasets Performance-sensitive programs Conclusion Selection Sort Time Complexity is simple to understand. But it is not efficient for big problems. It always takes O(n²) time, no matter the case. That is the same for best, worst, and average inputs. Still, it is useful in some cases. It’s great for learning sorting basics. It uses very little memory. If you’re working with small arrays, Selection Sort is fine. For large data, use better algorithms. Understanding its time complexity helps you choose the right algorithm. Always pick the tool that fits your task. Tech World TimesTech World Times (TWT), a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • 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 Comments 0 Shares
More Results