[_uhtu]

This is just one of the thousands of cases of a journalists fawning over any ML/AI thing with no understanding of the garbage-in garbage-out problem, and all the other issues with ML. You are completely right, attempting to simulate an individuals coronary systems is 100% out of our wheelhouse right now. At very best it's going to tell us things we already know, that people with clogged arteries are at risk of a heart attack. At worst it's a grift on par with fully body scans on healthy individuals.

I'm not saying ML is useless, far from it, but this is reminding me a lot of Eric Yuan (the CEO of Zoom) talking about AI clones in meetings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKmAg4S2KeE

[simonw]

The only similarity I see between this and the dumb Zoom thing is that the term "digital twin" sounds like it should mean "that stupid idea where you send your clone to a meeting".

That's not what "digital twin" means though: it's been used to describe digital simulations of systems (like the circulatory system described in this story) for a long time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_twin

I've seen the dumb AI clone idea called "personal digital twins". I don't like that it steals and dumbs down the existing useful term but we may be stuck with it.