>The company's premise was that you can't improve health outcomes without addressing the full context of someone's life

They are absolutely correct about this mathematically, you can’t solve problems you don’t have data for

The question is what organization would I trust with the full context of my life. None. Zero.

**future headline: Consumer warning: The panopticon(tm) product is embedded into your care plan, insurance is only available for panopticon subscribers.

> The first call that shifted his thinking was with a 67-year-old woman living out of her car, managing PTSD and congestive heart failure. She spoke with Flora for over an hour. "It was both incredible and depressing," Batlivala told me. "Flora was probably the only 'person' she'd talked to in weeks about her situation." Now, hourlong conversations with Flora are routine. "That's the companionship piece," he said. "And it turns out that is truly an intervention."

People don't seem to realize that this is both coming and that before long people will be defending AI "persons" because of this reason (OpenAI is already complaining about people doing this). Nobody's going to deliver this level of care using humans. It's not going to happen.

A lot of people needing care are deeply isolated and will be of the opinion that AI changes that.

It seems that TechCrunch, not a strong source of news since around 2014/15, is now just sending out AI text:

First the title: "Medicare's new payment model is built for AI. Most of the tech world has no idea", classic AI tell. The by-line is by the editor-in-chief.

Em-dashes everywhere, including in this quote, somewhat unusually: “The best solution wins, which, in regulated industries like healthcare — that’s not been the case.”

Oddly-short paragraphs: "That payment structure is the real news."

Rule of threes: "Pair Team launched in 2019 with a specific kind of patient in mind: people managing chronic conditions who were also dealing with unstable housing, too little food, or lack of transportation"

This whole paragraph: "There are real risks. Participants are feeding extraordinarily sensitive patient data — intimate conversations about housing and diseases and mental illness — into a federal infrastructure with a documented history of breaches, including exposed Social Security numbers. For the vulnerable populations ACCESS is designed to serve, that's not an impractical concern."

---

I haven't opened a TC article in years and I think I'll return to that practice.