451–460 of 500 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already had an effort by the left. You can “no true scotsmen” if you want, but it represents the reality of what will happen when ideals clash a sector that makes up 18% of the GDP. What’s going to be different now than in 2010?
> We already had an effort by the left. You mean the one based on Mitt Romney's approach?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you on this specific study, however, I can't really wrap my head about the fact that doctors will be better than AI models on the long-run. After all, medicine is all about knowledge, experience and intelligence (maybe "pattern recognition"), all those, we must assume that the best AI models (especially ones focusing solely in the medical field) would largely beat large majority of humans (aka doctors),…
To answer your question: talking to a human. Medicine is so much more than "knowledge, experience, and pattern matching", as any patient ever can attest to. Why is it so hard for some people to understand that humans need other humans and human problems can't be solved with technology?
I'd be very very hesitant to trust studies like this. It's very easy to mess up these benchmarks. See for example this recent paper where AI managed to beat radiologists on interpreting x-rays... when the AI didn't even have access to the x-rays: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.21687 (on a pre existing "large scale visual question answering benchmark for generalist chest x-ray understanding" that wasn't intentionally mess…
For that matter, probably less expensive to expand the AI conversation into as much as 30-40 minutes, where good luck ever getting that much time with a regular doctor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think that LLM vet companies wouldn't bend to the same forces of "over charging"
The general trend is that cost of entry in a lot of domains is collapsing. Every sniffed out systematic service overcharge can be aggressively undercut by competition. "Your margin is my opportunity", etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Cool. Aren't LLMs already doing all the work that requires focus and intelligence instead of you? So your solution is to outsource thinking and work? That'll work out great in the long run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No offense, but this comes off as passive indifference and while I've heard people say things like this all my life it has broadly resulted in watching 30 years of societal decay. I can't help but think this is wrong. We should have stacked the courts ourselves, brandished executive orders etc, had some spine. Edit: I think I need to make clear my thinking that the right has selectively destroyed institutions and lev…
Let's say, hypothetically, you had two political parties — a "destroy the current institutions" party, and the "preserve the current institutions" party. The latter might notice the former having an easier time, but "hey, it works for them" is the wrong takeaway. Commit to the hard work of building resilient institutions; don't join in the destruction because it's easier. There's also an element of "Never (...), they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No offense, but this comes off as passive indifference and while I've heard people say things like this all my life it has broadly resulted in watching 30 years of societal decay. I can't help but think this is wrong. We should have stacked the courts ourselves, brandished executive orders etc, had some spine. Edit: I think I need to make clear my thinking that the right has selectively destroyed institutions and lev…
"Stacking courts" would require a Senate that actually votes those judges in. "Brandishing Executive orders" requires a congress that won't be able to countermand you and a Supreme Court that won't "nuh uh" you. You are yet another person upset that Democrats cannot overcome the purposeful design of our government that you need a lot of power to build, and little power to destroy. People who want to fix things need d…
All of you talking about the right destroying things are wrong they’re just building things and enshrining things you wont like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's increased mine if it works for the repugnant morons in government right now we can use the same playbook for positive change.
It is statements like this that convince me we haven't learned anything and are doomed to ever wider pendulum swings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's having a general understanding/view of the "baseline", aka healthy anatomy. This is something LLMs will never have You're making the mistake of conflating AI with LLMs. I don't think LLMs will reliably be better than a board of doctors. But an Expert System probably will (if it isn't already). That's literally what they were created for. The biggest downside of LLMs IMO isn't the millions of Jules wasted on tra…
I am quite surprised that expert systems are not already used in this area (and others). As you say, this is exactly what they are meant for.