341–350 of 401 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 2011, I took an AI course at my university and it was all perceptrons and neural networks.
I took one longer ago than that and it wasn't all perceptrons and neural networks. It included other things too, like: planning, search methods, inference engines, decision trees, ...
I RFTA and the majority of the complaints are about call center metrics and the pressure to ration care. These are real concerns about misuse of metrics, but not AI. The AI empathy thing was a 2024 pilot that was discontinued. FWIW my wife works for Kaiser and finds a lot of value in the the medical LLM tools available to her. She tells me being able to do live translation, summarize notes, and quickly get comprehens…
Cardiac events from Apple Watches is not “AI” though
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
Ctrl-F Machine Learning. Apple Watch alerts are Machine Learning
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My local supermarket places the almond milk in the dairy section, and some people find this very upsetting.
That example kind of illustrates my point though? ML being in an AI book doesn't mean ML is AI, just as being in the dairy section does not make almond milk dairy.
Someone who was truly on the ball on this matter might’ve observed that Edinburgh in the 90s was so balkanized by internecine personality conflicts that most research that might later be strictly labelled “machine learning” actually took place in adjacent units and not directly under the DAIry. But I suppose you haven’t heard that, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
The machine is learning something so that it can produce outputs based on its learned knowledge. At a high level that seems to be very clearly AI. What am I missing here? You’re probably right, I’m asking genuinely.
There's overlap and edge cases, though: Maybe you have a program that summarizes texts. One could argue that's no different from a passive filter. But can you then ask questions about the text? That's unquestionably AI.
That is surprising. My primary care provider had a different response. Basically he said something in line of "You wouldn't believe how much of a relief it has been. In your last visit, you saw me typing everything you were saying, right? I don't have to. I can listen to you and take very specific notes as necessary as opposed to focusing on both typing and listening to you at the same time. It has bought my stress l…
If you think using a machine to evaluate how well a human is showing empathy is a good idea, you probably shouldn't have any position of power.
If a human’s performance for 40 plus hours a week can be reduced to a performance score , that too in a field like healthcare, that alone feels weird. Sure there needs to be some way to reward people/evaluate their work etc, but I dunno if management by metrics is the best way, especially when those numbers are calculated by an algorithm. Where has all the empathy gone? And common sense? :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being close relative for several med and care workers we have discussed it a lot and consensus is that it really depends. For example relying on LLM summaries sounds great until it doesn't. It doesn't matter whether you misunderstand LLM summary or LLM "misunderstands" you – there are real risks involved, and you wouldn't want them to weigh on your conscience if they were to materialize. Relying on LLM to summarize t…
I don’t think that it is possible to both allow the use of LLM and not mandate them in modern metric driven work places. Either you ban them or you force people to use them for game theoretic reasons: they are slower than their peers and quality of the work is harder to measure than quantity. All you achieve is shifting the blame to the employees if the LLM messes up. Come to think of it, that probably is a highly de…
How is this not a good thing for everyone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
everyone is very thirsty for AI hate, so its not unexpected. Today its a mixed bag of corpo hate, anxiety about the future, inequality and traditional class warfare, combined with the typical technical ignorance. I would expect companies to blend shit metrics with AI systems, if not at Kaiser then at other places. People lack imagination and using AI to monitor your workforce has to be one of the possibly worst ways…
> Today its a mixed bag of corpo hate, anxiety about the future, inequality and traditional class warfare, combined with the typical technical ignorance. Are there no actual problems with what it promises/how we're expected to use it at work/how it is used against us by people who use it at work? Is it just anxieties and feelings, that aren't actually grounded in anything? Everything's getting better for everyone, no…
I think OP is a good case in point where people are blaming AI but really the issue here is the human in the loop, the person implementing these abhorrent policies that happen to be powered by AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence As it is taught literally every single AI/machine learning course on the world, machine learning is very much part of AI completely since inception. I don’t completely understand why it is this important for you to argue against this completely defined fact.
It is correct to argue about misleading terminology. "AI" contains the word "intelligence", and for instance logistic regression algorithm is not intelligent, while it is clearly ML, since machine learns something. As Machine learning is broader category, it should include Artificial Intelligence, not vice versa. Also, 'every single course' is perhaps an overstatement - a course that I co-authored tries to get it rig…