• Zachariah
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    14 hours ago

    it’s the stringent verification of results that makes it useful

    • Gladaed@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 hours ago

      That’s true for all research in medicine. The suggestion to not check for errors is mental and would only be suggested by non technical people.

      • Zachariah
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        unfortunately, this how most companies are run

        • Gladaed@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I am sorry, but did you read that I was talking about medicine first and foremost?

          Also using evidence based approaches can be beneficial for longevity of any company and if you truly believe otherwise, then that’s your perogative.

          • Zachariah
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            That’s true for all research in medicine.

            Yes, that’s why I pointed out why it works in this field.

            The suggestion to not check for errors is mental and would only be suggested by non technical people.

            The way people run companies in others fields is mental, and they want to use AI without verification. They shouldn’t, but they do (hence the “unfortunately”). And even when they say they’re evidence based, it’s usually cherry picked to justify what they were going to do anyway.