In what's expected to soon be commonplace, artificial intelligence is being harnessed to pick up signs of cancer more accurately than the trained human eye. This latest AI model has a near 100% success rate and serves as a clear sign of things to come.
Who said that this isn’t the planned use case? The article is reporting on the results of a test, not suggesting that AI can replace doctors.
That’s nonsense.
A CPU 100% outperforms a Mathematician, a crane 100% outperforms the strongest human and a shovel can dig faster than your hands. Radar, lidar, optics, etc are all technologies that perform well beyond human capabilities.
Robotic surgery 100% outperforms doctors. Medical imaging 100% outperforms human doctors. Having a model that can interpret the images better than people isn’t at all surprising or dangerous.
It’s only the fact that you’ve implied that this will replace doctors that make it sound scary. But that implication isn’t supported by facts.
can you give an example of robotic surgery done independently by a machine and not a doctor???
All the previous examples were things operated by humans: shovel, crane, even the robotic surgery.
I am sure we can teach AI to do some or all of these someday, but demanding an example for one of them as completely autonomous makes it seem like you aren’t paying attention, aren’t participating in the discussion in good faith, and are just fishing for a “gotcha!” moment.
That’s why you are getting downvotes, in case you are curious.
If you do have a good faith argument, clarifying it might get people to listen to you and consider it.
I read it as replace doctors but yeah. I mean even current crappy ai chatbots can increase the productivity of a human. Granted we have thinned our systems in prioritizing efficiency over quality that Im not sure if we will see much of an effect till we have a society were people are relatively satisfied with its functioning.