The replacing part is the problem. Using a local system to help is fine, but it still requires humans who know what they’re doing and what they’re looking at.
Sometimes, for example human + AI systems used to be better than either one in isolation, but chess AI improved so much that the human partner is actually not helping anymore
Chess strategy is extremely complicated and probably will never be completely solved. It will be almost solved like checkers eventually when programs will just draw vs. each other or a white win is found
But we will never actually simulate all games since the number of chess games dwarfs the number of atoms in the universe. So in that sense we will never know what the “correct” move is outside of table base or mate situations. Medicine may actually be less complicated to a machine.
Bu the only benchmark should be “how good the humans are at a task” since you’re not trying to be perfect. You only have to provide better results than the current system.
It doesn’t replace any individual directly. It improves one person’s capability to the extent that there may be fewer needed to do a job. And that’s not a bad thing in my opinion, especially because it can improve the quality of that person’s work at the same time.
Edit to elaborate: I am opposed to replacing humans with AI in general. AI is a tool. But if that tool can empower someone to do more and better work, then I’m not opposed. Using stolen intellectual property to replace creatives with an inherently non-creative slop machine is greedy and evil. Using machine learning trained on medical data sets to let a radiologist more comprehensively and deeply review a frankly overwhelming amount of data to better save lives? I’m cool with that. But I also think that, in line with my stance that AI is a tool, there will likely be a well-trained human operating these tools for a long time before radiologists cease to exist.
The replacing part is the problem. Using a local system to help is fine, but it still requires humans who know what they’re doing and what they’re looking at.
Sometimes, for example human + AI systems used to be better than either one in isolation, but chess AI improved so much that the human partner is actually not helping anymore
But chess is an isolated “system” with clear rules. Reality and especially medicine is so much more complicated.
Chess strategy is extremely complicated and probably will never be completely solved. It will be almost solved like checkers eventually when programs will just draw vs. each other or a white win is found
But we will never actually simulate all games since the number of chess games dwarfs the number of atoms in the universe. So in that sense we will never know what the “correct” move is outside of table base or mate situations. Medicine may actually be less complicated to a machine.
Bu the only benchmark should be “how good the humans are at a task” since you’re not trying to be perfect. You only have to provide better results than the current system.
It doesn’t replace any individual directly. It improves one person’s capability to the extent that there may be fewer needed to do a job. And that’s not a bad thing in my opinion, especially because it can improve the quality of that person’s work at the same time.
Edit to elaborate: I am opposed to replacing humans with AI in general. AI is a tool. But if that tool can empower someone to do more and better work, then I’m not opposed. Using stolen intellectual property to replace creatives with an inherently non-creative slop machine is greedy and evil. Using machine learning trained on medical data sets to let a radiologist more comprehensively and deeply review a frankly overwhelming amount of data to better save lives? I’m cool with that. But I also think that, in line with my stance that AI is a tool, there will likely be a well-trained human operating these tools for a long time before radiologists cease to exist.