• Skua@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    In the example you provided, you’re doing it by hand afterwards anyway. How is a doctor going to vet the work of the AI without examining the case in as much detail as they would have without the AI?

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Input symptoms and patient info -> spits out odds they have x, y, or z -> doctor looks at that as a supplement to their own work or to look for more unlikely possibilities they haven’t thought of because they’re a bit unusual. Doctors aren’t gods, they can’t recall everything perfectly. It’s as useful as any toxicology report or other information they get.

      I am not doing my edits by hand. I am not using a blade tool and spooling film. I am not processing it. My computer does everything for me, I simply tell it what to do and it spits out the desired result (usually lol). Without my eyes and knowledge the inputs aren’t good and the outputs aren’t vetted. With a person, both are satisfied. This is how all computer usage basically works, and AI tools are no different. Input->output, quality depends on the computer/software and who is handling it.

      TL;DR: Garbage in, garbage out.