• Replies 83 replies
  • Subscribers 100 subscribers
  • Views 2466 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

BBC In Depth: the ongoing battle to define autism

B

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdew81wd2y8o

Warning: unsettling especially for those late diagnosed.

Parents

  • What if... there turned out to be more autistics than NT's? Yippee!!!!!!!

  • in reply to Marianne72
    That thought has crossed my mind several times, too! But looking at the numbers, it presents a really fascinating 'what if.'
    Right now, the best educated guess for formal autism prevalence sits between 1% and 3%, while the broader umbrella of invisible neurominorities is estimated at 15% to 20% of the global population. So even if everyone unmasked, we wouldn't outnumber neurotypicals.
    However, we don't actually need to be the majority to change society. According to a landmark study in Science by Dr Damon Centola, a minority group just needs to reach a 25% tipping point to create a dramatic shift where the majority rapidly adopts new social norms.
    Since neurodivergence sits just under that mark at 15–20%, the most practical way to bridge the gap to 25% is through neurotypical allies. The more people who feel safe enough to be diagnosed and live openly, the more we demonstrate our shared humanity—and the closer we get to pushing that tipping point over the line.
    Of course, to get there, people actually need access to timely identification. I deeply hope that current systemic pressures and funding cuts to assessment pathways are short-lived. Restricting the pathway to a diagnosis doesn't make neurodivergence disappear; it just forces it back into hiding, keeping our community away from that vital 25% threshold.
  • in reply to Phased
    Reflecting on what I wrote above  , I realise looking at macro population statistics can sound a bit academic and detached when the ground-level reality is so brutal right now.
    Talking about reaching a 25% tipping point doesn't change the fact that people are currently stuck on five or six-year NHS waiting lists just trying to get the validation they need. That's why the point about AI tools speeding up assessments by removing administrative backlogs is so vital. We can't build visibility or allyship if the systemic gatekeeping keeps slamming the door on people before they even get to the start line.
  • in reply to Peter1970

    hehe - possibly too much information but you post has just reminded me that I need to visit the loo...

    You have every right to be suspicious of "body language experts".  I should know as, in some ways, I made a career out of it.

    Somewhat ironic given that I get so engrossed in things that i don't even notice what my own digestive system needs are!

  • in reply to Phased

    Yeah, that scares the cr*p out of me a bit Joy I have always been very suspicious of "body language experts" 

  • in reply to Peter1970

    Understood  - those AI systems viewing facial and eye movements reminded of the science fiction of "Blade Runner".

    W/r/to those "tells" I was especially interested and alluding to this scoping review https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12620671/  there are also individual studies worth looking at -

    "digital medicine" is another way of putting a finger on the pulse :-)

  • in reply to Phased

    Sorry, I can't seem to get the "quote" option to work but the AI response to the turnip question is exactly what I would have expected to a text input query. I was referring more to the logic behind the interface and the programming. The AI can only process what it understands as processable. Something like a nod of the head or a physical reaction to a given question would not play a part in how an AI would process a response because it can't see it. Slight changes in facial expression even previous behaviour that an AI would not be aware of.

    In saying that I am also a big science fiction fan so I obviously can't rule out some type of fully autonomous artificial being in the future but I think we are a fair bit away from that at the moment

  • in reply to Peter1970

    Please excuse my answering you 2 good people in 1 response -

    Peter1970 said:
    5+5=10, 20-4=16 but if it comes to 10+turnip=? What will it do?

    I've just run that thro' the AI I use and it has replied:

    "Because you cannot mathematically add an integer to a root vegetable, the answer depends entirely on how you want to play it:......... 

    Are you solving a specific word puzzle, or would you like to assign a numerical value to the turnip?"
    Which seens to me to satisfy what
    TheCatWoman said:
    would the AI have the wit to ask a colegue and would it have the sort of professional supervision that many humans have to have
    as being entirely possible.
    In respect of
    TheCatWoman said:
    I can't imagine how a machine that didn't know my conversational style would even hope to

    you don't have to imagine how an AI could be used because other people already have.

    AI can detect the exact same behavioural cues a clinician looks for, but it does so by breaking them down into precise measurable data.

    While a highly experienced clinician might consciously/subconsciously note a micro-expression, a slight delay in eye contact, or a specific vocal rhythm, an AI model quantifies these behaviors explicitly.  Furthermore it can be employed to detect movement variables in gaze and movement patterns in other contexts.
    Advanced algorithms can be used to analyse brain scans for unusual connections with very great precision.
    At present this sort of thing could (and is to some parameters) be used to help a human make the diagnosis.
    I wrote:
    Phased said:
    I believe human oversight is especially vital because of how complex and differently interpreted diagnostic criteria already are:

    so for now I agree that it's vital to have the humans in the chain too - the AI to free up more time for human to human contact by it doing some of the donkey work in sorting and ratifying potentially.

    For now.  Meaning that I don't believe it not beyond imagination that if enough computing power and human ingenuity is thrown at it, AI could do the whole diagnosis.

    Comes down to the statistical evidence of, however it is done, it being accurate, safe and reliable in my opinion.  Although I'm happy to respect different opinions of others on that.

  • in reply to TheCatWoman

    yep- the Ai I use can "see that" by recognising it in a search and says it's a joke too

    PS love Dawn French :-)

  • in reply to TheCatWoman

    AI training is still something they have not really perfected I think. I was involved in programming very early forms of AI. It was just datasets with basically if/then decision trees. Basically  a questionnaire with a list of possible responses based on user choices. That then develops to expanding the datasets based on responses entered. This still needed human intervention to make sure the data in the datasets were valid. Still based on preprogrammed if/then decision trees which can be added to based on new data gathered. It is all manageable and simple to this point. But modern AI systems not only write their own datasets they now write their own decision trees (theoretically based on decision trees parameters set by humans) but these become so large so quickly that regardless of how well a company claims they manage a self learning AI system at some point it becomes impossible and impossible to find where the route of a potential problem began, they are just far too vast for even the largest team of developers to manage. So I would not trust an AI to be able to, as you say easily recognise subtle changes or idiosyncrasies in human behaviour or stick to any type of parameters that would try to ensure this. 

    I suppose what I mean is that any computer system works on logic.

    5+5=10, 20-4=16 but if it comes to 10+turnip=? What will it do?

  • in reply to Phased

    I just told Co-pilot the joke and it did recognse  it as a joke and a very British one at that, but we had been talking about absurdist British humour yesterday and I think it just picked up on it.

Reply Children
No Data