Fuck AI

1835 readers

318 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

founded 11 months ago

MODERATORS

1835

You think? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

130 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 164 points 1 month ago (3 children)

In other words, an AI-supported radiologist should spend exactly the same amount of time considering your X-ray, and then see if the AI agrees with their judgment, and, if not, they should take a closer look. AI should make radiology more expensive, in order to make it more accurate.

But that’s not the AI business model. AI pitchmen are explicit on this score: The purpose of AI, the source of its value, is its capacity to increase productivity, which is to say, it should allow workers to do more, which will allow their bosses to fire some of them, or get each one to do more work in the same time, or both. The entire investor case for AI is “companies will buy our products so they can do more with less.” It’s not “business customers will buy our products so their products will cost more to make, but will be of higher quality.”

Cory Doctorow: What Kind of Bubble is AI?

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 month ago (1 children)

AI tools like this should really be viewed as a calculator. Helpful for speeding up analysis, but you still require an expert to sign off.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Honestly anything they are used for should be validated by someone with a brain.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

But that's exactly what's being said. Hire one person to sign off on radiology AI doing the work of ten doctors, badly.

[+] Apytele 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You don't need AI for this and it's probably Not using "AI"

Also in other Countries there is No bullshit Separation between Nurses and "Techs"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

What they're describing is the kind of thing where the "last-gen" iteration/definition of AI, as in pretrained neural networks, are very applicable - taking in various vitals as inputs and outputting a value for if it should be alarming. For simple things you don't need any of that, but if you want to be detecting more subtle signs to give an early warning, it can be really difficult to manually write logic for that, while machine learning can potentially catch cases you didn't even think of.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Ideally, yeah - people would review and decide first, then check if the AI opinion confers.

We all know that's just not how things go in a professional setting.

Anyone, including me, is just going to skip to the end and see what the AI says, and consider whether it's reasonable. Then spend the alotted time goofing off.

Obviously this is not how things ought to be, but it's how things have been every time some new tech improves productivity.