71–80 of 168 posts
Its supercharging the worst in everything its applied to. Try getting a job right now. All of the automated systems that are doing screening will throw you out if you aren't 100% compatible with whatever they're looking for. Sure, its cheaper than human screening, but now you've got a position not filled for even longer, which is probably costing you in other ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" For those thinking that AI will reduce healthcare costs by improving efficiency, I point you to the 'electronic medical records' hype of 15 years ago. Are per capita healthcare costs any lower now? " Can you elaborate? In countries like Denmark or Estonia electronic medical records are well used among doctors and patients.
The idea was that with all this healthcare data, patients would realize better outcomes. Like, your super-Doctor is going to realize that 6 months ago, you went to urgent care of XYZ condition, and that's going to shine some kind of light on your situation now, so he's going to be better prepared to treat you. The reality is, the vast majority of that data is useless noise, nobody has the time to make any kind of ana…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" For those thinking that AI will reduce healthcare costs by improving efficiency, I point you to the 'electronic medical records' hype of 15 years ago. Are per capita healthcare costs any lower now? " Can you elaborate? In countries like Denmark or Estonia electronic medical records are well used among doctors and patients.
I think the point is that one of the big hype phrases is that it will decrease costs of healthcare and lower people's bills, but even if you lower the cost, there is no actual incentive to lower patient bills, so the extra value simply goes to owners and investors rather than the end consumer.
Over in the EU, where most of the healthcare is single-payer (sometimes with optional add-ons/extra payers/private care), cost of care has been growing too. There are simply many more treatments which are available now than before, more tests possible to discover issues, etc. as well as of course the higher life expectancy and higher average age across the board. That doesn't mean improvements shouldn't be undertaken. Such as electronic medical files (which are the norm in multiple EU countries but sadly not everywhere, and not on an EU scale - as born in one EU country and now living in another, it would have been extremely useful to be able to automatically share my childhood records), or maybe ML to do predictions and stuff.
Earlier discussion on this topic, with the original source link from ArsTechnica: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38299921 (Nov 17, 2023) As I said on that thread: the dangers of AI will always come down to human decisions made on how it should be applied. These 'solutions' will come from the McKinseys and IBMs of the world to serve hospital CEO needs, not those of patients or care providers. For those thinking…
" For those thinking that AI will reduce healthcare costs by improving efficiency, I point you to the 'electronic medical records' hype of 15 years ago. Are per capita healthcare costs any lower now? " Can you elaborate? In countries like Denmark or Estonia electronic medical records are well used among doctors and patients.
I would say all of the intervention by the US federal government has made everything much worse. The EHR vendors (I'm looking at you, Epic) managed to consume the money thrown at the problem and yet have only moderately improved. In my opinion it also pushed smaller hospitals into expensive contracts with EHR vendors, eroding their already tenuous financial health and leading to even more consolidation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hasn't the poverty rate consistently decreased?
The gap between rich and poor is growing at increasing pace, just like the gap between rich and mega-rich is. If you went completely hungry yesterday, nearly starved to death, but today you get enough calories that you feel less pain so you can at least stand up and walk around a bit, while you watch your brother stuff his face with so much cake he has to puke 3 times to make room for more, to then play frisbee with…
Why the hell should that matter? If the system wanted to keep poor people poor, won't the poverty rate stay the same? Thats the assertion I was countering.
Why keep moving the goalpost? But I will play along:
> If you went completely hungry yesterday, nearly starved to death, but today you get enough calories that you feel less pain so you can at least stand up and walk around a bit, while you watch your brother stuff his face with so much cake he has to puke 3 times to make room for more, to then play frisbee with the rest, what would you think? How it was for you yesterday isn't the standard. How it is for others, today, is the standard. It's about fairness and human dignity, nothing more and nothing less. If everybody was starving, we wouldn't even have a name for it, or a problem with it. It wouldn't be a slight on anyone.
1. You should first ask if your brother got his cake fair and square. If so, then you should be happy you are not puking and be happy for him. Don't be selfish. Let's say your brother worked 10 times more than you (80 hrs) and smarter than you while you stayed in bed and watched TV all day on his dime. Isn't inequality the fairer but still painful outcome in this case? F
2. Should you and your brother have the same quality of life despite the efforts you put in? Why should you be entitled to his fruits of action beyond sustenance?
3. If you agree there in diversity in level of effort and thought, then inequality is the fairer outcome.
4. Also, one should stop comparing only outcomes, you should also compare inputs.
> Even when users successfully appealed these AI-generated determinations and win, they’re greeted with follow up AI-dictated rejections just days later, starting the process all over again. Wait, what? Does that mean they can just take your money and reject your request to cover treatment until you die even if you had every right to do so?
Yes, this is what Americans mean when they parrot bullshit about freedom: the freedom for corporations to do whatever they like in pursuit of profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't understand because you think we have a society built around making life better for everyone. It's not. Our society currently is optimized for one thing: Making sure the rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. In that respect, AI is amazing. AI requires a small upfront cost, then can do the job of thousands of people for the pay of less than one. It works 24 hours, and will never ask for more money. And it w…
> AI requires a small upfront cost, then can do the job of thousands of people That's the same with every efficiency improvement. Efficiency improvements (like AI) aren't zero sum. When production costs go down, competition forces prices to also go down, which then leads to more wealth for everyone not just the capital owners (even if it disproportionately benefits capital owners). People are made redundant and then…
I got a new job recently and I have been saying this is what I will be doing, writing AI to deny claims, AS A JOKE. We pay taxes so the government can pay to subsidize these healthcare corps that just serve to funnel money to its already rich shareholders. Healthcare is a pathetic broken mess and it will never get better.
> it will never get better Don't lose hope, other countries manage to be a lot better. It's possible if you only try.
Or start our own “people’s hospitals” or even insurance (there should not be insurance schemes IMO)
Or maybe not pay existing hospitals/ insurance companies
I do not know how else to “try”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would a human also not choose a perfect CV over other options. What does this prove about AI.
You want a perfect candidate not a perfect CV. A perfect CV is highly likely to have lies and was made up based on the job ad, addressing every single requirement bullet.
Wouldn't "AI" also know this though. I would imagine AI is doing more than keyword match type stuff.
> Even when users successfully appealed these AI-generated determinations and win, they’re greeted with follow up AI-dictated rejections just days later, starting the process all over again. Wait, what? Does that mean they can just take your money and reject your request to cover treatment until you die even if you had every right to do so?
Yep, and ever since a certain insurance provider has switched to an AI system, I've had nearly all my Type 1 Diabetic prescriptions rejected (that I've had no problem getting for over a decade). Then it takes hours on the phone for every prescription to finally get one approved. Rinse and repeat every 3 months.