@Shadowman311
cc @dave
This os the exact kind of thing I meant, when I said, that parity with doctors diagnosis is not a goal you should be aiming for.
@LukeAlmighty @Shadowman311 It’s not the final goal though? The tweet was highlighting the rapid pace of improvement, not asserting that % of answers deemed correct by a doctor is the be-all end-all for determining correctness of medical advice.
Hell, we’ve had areas where AI algorithms outperform the pros at certain tasks (such as certain types of cancer detection) for years now. Obviously doctors aren’t the ultimate arbiter of truth.
@dave @Shadowman311
You say "obviously", except that was the entire methodology.
@LukeAlmighty @Shadowman311 If you ask a physicist what the shape of the earth is, and his response is “a sphere”, are you going to throw up your hands and say “well, we can’t trust physicists now. Maybe the flat earthers are right…” since it’s not technically a sphere (it’s an oblate spheroid), or do you still recognize that even though they both technically gave wrong answers, one is still clearly more qualified than the other?
Obviously, you can still make that distinction, and it’s the same with doctors, who until very recently were clearly more qualified to give medical advice than an AI language model. What were they supposed to be using to assess this shit over the past few years? The perfect AI doctor that doesn’t even exist yet?
@dave @Shadowman311
Why the fuck do you drag flat earthers into this?
Ok, You made your point of being bad faith on this topic. What a shame, since I love the topic of selecting correct scientific experiments so much.
Why the fuck do you drag flat earthers into this?
Because I assumed that was an area where you believe that despite being occasionally wrong, the actual experts are still a more reliable source of truth than the cranks that are trying to convince you to ignore them.
The same thing holds true for the medical profession.
It doesn't.
@Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @Shadowman311 Reading comprehension check: does “the same thing” mean that I believe that the scale of the junk science problem is the same in both fields?
@Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @Shadowman311 No, I know that it’s insignificant enough, or small enough, that the assertion still holds true. Your quibbling about how they are less reliable than fucking physics of all things doesn’t change the fact that they’re still more reliable than fucking homeopaths, facebook moms, and internet cranks.
A. Doing nothing
B. Using common sense
C. Doing what was done in times past
If they fail one of these then they can be considered unreliable and possibly even a detriment. Doesn't matter if [other group] can be considered such as well.
@Jens_Rasmussen @dave @Shadowman311
And in this study, they were comparing against opinions instead of against results.
Judging AI against opinions means, that if it's more correct then experts, then it gets less points.
