Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45381141

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Is it the case that UnitedHealth and Cigna each own (or control) one of the "big three" PBMs? If so, that is a just crazy - the control insurance premium pricing, benefit decisions, AND the pricing of covered medications?

yadaebo wrote below "Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) is capped at 85% in the US which means 85% of revenue must go to patients". Does controlling a big PBM allow an insurance company a loophole?

Maybe I should have just linked to the research paper:

[B'MOJO: Hybrid state space realizations of foundation models with eidetic and fading memory](https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2407.06324)

The article develops a theoretical framework contrasting traditional inductive learning (which emphasizes generalization over memorization) with transductive inference (which embraces memorization and reasoning). Here's a quote:

"What matters is that LLMs are inductively trained transductive-inference engines and can therefore support both forms of inference.[2] They are capable of performing inference by inductive learning, like any trained classifier, akin to Daniel Kahneman’s “system 1” behavior — the fast thinking of his book title Thinking Fast and Slow. But LLMs are also capable of rudimentary forms of transduction, such as in-context-learning and chain of thought, which we may call system 2 — slow-thinking — behavior. The more sophisticated among us have even taught LLMs to do deduction — the ultimate test for their emergent abilities."

Sadly, the opening quote is not elucidated.

“One year of research in neural networks is sufficient to believe in God.” The writing on the wall of John Hopfield’s lab at Caltech made no sense to me in 1992. Three decades later, and after years of building large language models, I see its sense if one replaces sufficiency with necessity: understanding neural networks as we teach them today requires believing in an immanent entity.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42210978

Points: 5

# Comments: 9

Eric Davidson did a bunch of pioneering work meticulously "debugging" this spatiotemporal genomic logic in the sea urchin. Pretty amazing. Eukaryotes like us have control elements directly upstream of our genes (trans-acting aka close acting) and also 100,000's of base pairs distant (cis-acting). The region of DNA directly preceding the beginning of an open reading frame at the start of a gene usually has a sequence of DNA motifs that bind proteins that can increase or decrease expression of the gene. Davidson and others showed that the transcription factor proteins that bind to these control motifs actually have additional other proteins that bind to them, in literally a layer on top, and that the sequences of proteins in this second layer recruit a tertiary layer of proteins that conditionally cause more or less gene expression, depending on their identities. You could say the secondary and tertiary layers are a form of "abstraction" in a literal sense, since they encode a hierarchy of logical operations.

Here's an open-access overview of Davidson's work which incidentally illuminates a lot of these concepts in more detail for a lay audience: "ERIC DAVIDSON: STEPS TO A GENE REGULATORY NETWORK FOR DEVELOPMENT" by Ellen Rothenberg, 2016; doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2016.01.020 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4828313/

to see the decoded logic in pseudocode and with a diagram, see "cis-Regulatory control circuits in development", Howard and Davidson, 2004, Developmental Biology, vol 271, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2004.03.031 (open access)