Dr. Jeppe Trautner
1.1K posts

Dr. Jeppe Trautner
@jptrautner
Scholar. Officer. Cold War I + II veteran. 10 Years in 75 Countries. Fluent in the Language of Military Power. Defence analyst.

One of my longest-standing arguments is that we are not living in Orwell’s 1984, where truth is centrally suppressed and censored by force (that’s former communist societies, modern-day China, Russia, North Korea). We are living in something much closer to Huxley’s Brave New World. The truth is not hidden - it is almost always readily available. But it is buried beneath an industrial quantity of noise: propaganda, outrage, half-truths, conspiracy theories, influencer theatre, algorithmic rage bait and an endless stream of content designed not to inform us, but to keep us emotionally stimulated. The modern information system does not need to censor the truth when it can simply drown it in noise. A fact no longer has to be disproven - it only has to be surrounded by a hundred competing claims, stripped of context and nuance, turned into partisan ammunition and pushed into the same feed as celebrity gossip, memes and 15 second videos engineered to deliver the fastest possible dopamine hit. By the time the truth reaches us, it appears as just another piece of content competing for our attention. That is the more sophisticated form of control: not preventing people from knowing, but exhausting their capacity to care. Orwell feared a world in which people would be deprived of information. Huxley feared a world in which they would be given so much distraction, stimulation and triviality that they would lose the desire to seek it. The defining struggle of our age is therefore not simply between truth and censorship, but between truth and indifference.





At best, this war will free the Iranians, destroy the Iran-China-Russia Axis, help Ukraine, stabilise Middle East. Risks: No regime change, nuclear Iran; China escalates in South China Sea and Russia in Baltics, a stronger Axis, US/West humiliated, wider war. Trump gambles!









Hello @AOC, while you smiled in a hijab at a New York event, I was in Federal Court facing the 4th hitman hired by the Islamic Republic to assassinate me, for campaigning for Iranian women to have the same freedom you performed for a photo op. Will you come to court with me in August when I face the 5th hitman? Or does solidarity only work when it doesn't offend the Islamic regime? You wore hijab voluntarily in New York. Women are killed in Iran for taking it off. You are the very woman who, at every opportunity, protests against violence against women, decries gender segregation, and champions "inclusion." Yet here you stand, smiling and wearing a hijab, at an event in New York, in the heart of the West, where men and women are strictly separated. To me and millions of Iranian women, this does not look like a choice. It is no longer "My body, my choice," but rather "My body for votes." They who claim to fight for women's self-determination in the name of feminism voluntarily embrace an ideology that mandates our women cover their hair simply because they are women. They enjoy the prosperity, freedom, and privileges of the Western world, where they may live as autonomous individuals , yet they simultaneously accept that other women should not be afforded the same rights. #LetUsTalk





3 ud af 4 tandlæger journalfører mere end nødvendigt, fordi de er i tvivl om de juridiske krav. Det lyder tørt. Men det betyder, at fagpersoner hver dag bruger enorme mængder tid på dokumentation, i stedet for på det arbejde de faktisk er uddannet til. Derfor bakker jeg @AllanFeldt_ op, når han siger, at AI skal have en større rolle. For lidt over et år siden besluttede jeg at bygge et system med én opgave: At reducere tandlægers tid på administration. Ved at fjerne det arbejde, der holder tandlægen væk fra sit fag. Løsningen blev et AI-system, hvor tandlægen eller tandplejeren indtaler behandlingsforløbet, AI behandler lydfilen, og journalen leveres på skærmen. Hastigheden var afgørende. Men kun hvis den kunne leveres ansvarligt. AI må ikke opdigte. AI må ikke gætte. AI må ikke pynte journalen, så den ser perfekt ud, men bliver juridisk farlig. Hvis tandlægen ikke har nævnt patientsamtykke, må systemet ikke bare skrive, at samtykke blev givet. For så står tandlægen pludselig med en journal, der ser korrekt ud, men ikke er sand. Derfor skal tandlægen hele tiden sidde i førersædet. Jeg har testet systemet sammen med tandlæger, justeret igen og igen, og kørt 1000 testcases med forskellig sværhedsgrad. 80 procent af journalerne blev genereret på under ét minut, inklusive den tid det tog at indtale behandlingsforløbet. De resterende lå typisk mellem ét og tre minutter, afhængigt af kompleksitet. Det, der reelt tog længst tid, var tandlægens egen indtaling. I praksis betyder det, at dokumentationstiden kan reduceres fra over 80 minutter om dagen til omkring 15 minutter pr. behandler. På en klinik med flere behandlingsrum bliver gevinsten hurtigt enorm. Selv edge cases blev behandlet forsigtigt. Hvis en tandlæge sagde: “Patienten kom ind med smerter, vi fiksede et hul, alt godt,” så skulle AI’en ikke lyde klog. Den skulle være ærlig. I de tilfælde citerede den tandlægen ordret, fordi inputtet var for tyndt til at gøre andet. Hvorfor fortæller jeg det her? Fordi hvis én person med begrænsede midler kan bygge et system, der reducerer dokumentationstid markant i én branche, burde et land med milliarder i midler kunne gøre det samme i langt større skala. Forestil jer så samme princip i hjemmeplejen. Hos lægen. På hospitalerne. Hvor mange timer bruger vi i dag på dokumentation, skemaer, gentagelser og systemer, mens mennesker venter på hjælp? Vi taler konstant om mangel på varme hænder. Men måske burde vi også tale om, hvor mange varme hænder vi binder fast til kolde skærme. AI er ikke fremtiden, fordi den kan erstatte mennesker. AI er fremtiden, fordi den kan give mennesker tiden tilbage. #dkpol #dkmedier











