I’m not sure if I just thought this up sitting on the tiles in my shower room or if I dreamt it, but still.
Edit: I’m being cynical and I hate our blind faith in and reliance on LLMs.
I’m not sure if I just thought this up sitting on the tiles in my shower room or if I dreamt it, but still.
Edit: I’m being cynical and I hate our blind faith in and reliance on LLMs.
Yeah but in a post about LLMs I think the context clues kinda enforce what AI algorithm is being discussed.
I suppose it is only mentioned in the edit of OP, but still
I thought the spirit of the discussion was ethics of allowing machines to make medical decisions. Which, I think is a valid philosophical discussion that needs to happen soon, because the technology is quickly going to put us there.
Using a digital Magic 8 ball to make those decisions is just nonsense, and there’s nothing to discuss.
You got me there not gonna lie.
I think I have a hard time seeing technological/ethical/philosphical as new cause most of it is just a change in order of magnitude over old mathematical/ethical/philosophical debates, but that is my own bias. Honestly I feel like comparing AI models is closer to that stupid Nazi “skull measuring” bs than a generalisable framework for the universe.
On the medical ethical side, I’d trust a computer to make decisions that require that processing order of magnitude (or sampling frequency/sampling method) - but again I feel like we were already accepting this back in the 40s with early digital sensors, and even more so in the 90s on with microchips.
But I wouldn’t trust them on emotional decisions and interpretation, cause why try to approximate some then when real humans exist.
So TLDR my hot take is Drs have for a while been human machine translator/therapists, which ends up being a pretty damn technical job.
This is such a good summary of my thinking process. Thanks! 😀