251–260 of 401 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really not sure how that's a counterexample. The section is called machine learning, not AI. Machine learning is a useful tool for artificial intelligence, so I'd be surprised if a book about AI did not talk about it.
Machine learning is just what we call AI that works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On corporate whoredom? Absolutely. My pushback is that now is not the time for both-sides-ism. It needs to be addressed but most voters are poorly informed or vote their emotions and that talking point needs to go in the back pocket for later, if there is one. I get your point, and the other one stating that Democrats are not "the left", but they are the the least worst option that a 2 party system offers. The game i…
will you give up identity politics for the deplorables vote?
If you read through any of the DNC talking points of any given campaign, you're not going to see much on social issues until you maybe get to Kennedy. It's just not really something that's a pressing issue for a presidential run.
And honestly, I can't think of any social policies in the last 50 years that was seriously pushed by a sitting president. They at best pay lip service by painting a rainbow on some building, often years after the actual legal and legislative battles were won.
----
Now, to directly answer your question: I'd rather not rely on deplorables to vote progressive. the nature of how they approach life simply won't allow that, even if they are otherwise in full agreement with every point. We need to energize the entire 3rd of the country that took one of the most important elections in the past 60 years and simply shrugged, staying home. We need to give them someone who will fight for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally will not use a provider who uses llm tools. I know it makes me and my coworkers less careful and lazier. Qualities I dont want in a health care providor. Ive actually moved primary care physicians over this once already, found the oldest guy I could who barely knows how to use a laptop but spends a bunch of extra time with me.
The older the doctor the more experience they have, but also their knowledge is more outdated (how many keep up with medical journals?) and their brain is worse at learning and connecting dots so I'm not sure I'd choose the oldest I could find.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Classic "1 star review because UPS lost my delivery" metric. I'd guess most people have had a situation where there's a corporate problem, the support person you talk to literally doesn't have the tools or the agency to fix it, but then you're asked to rate their performance on whether or not they solved the issue, with no option to say "Actually they did their best but this isn't their fault."
> with no option to say "Actually they did their best but this isn't their fault." In this case, the lack of such an option is obviously a flaw in the assessment system. How to fix that? Major political issue, I suppose.
I suppose it is political because these companies rarely want accurate assessment of their labor to begin with. They want any justification needed to lay anyone off at any time while minimizing legal liability.
I can guarantee this is because the nurses don’t like the extra oversight and surveillance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The “overlap” is that all machine learning is AI, but not all AI is machine learning.
> The “overlap” is that all machine learning is AI ... "All machine learning" is not AI, as k-means clustering and linear regression, amongst others, are very much ML without qualifying as AI algorithms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that the insurance company whose CEO was murdered because of the terrible quality of care they delivered?
Mangione had back issues and apparently some difficulty in getting treatment for it, but he wasn't insured by UHC. According to his manifesto, he chose Brian Thompson as his victim because UHC was the largest health insurance company in the United States.
Kaiser was the first insurance company in america. If they cant make it work then we are lost.
The problem has always been pharmaceutical prices, liability costs, and inadequate supply of healthcare.
The government does not want to decrease the price of medicine by funding trials so medicine is in the public domain and cheaper, the government does not want to increase the number of matriculating doctors and bring down their time/money/stress costs, and the government does not want to enact tort reform so every step of the healthcare chain is spending inordinate amounts of time and money to prevent litigation.
In the US, you should always be double checking what your provider (or guidelines or whatever) is telling you to ensure that the information is maximizing your benefit instead of minimizing their liability.