You kinda did by calling other people’s work janitorial and factory work as if that was a bad thing.
Well your previous comment sure sounded like you didn’t know the difference, comparing AI to a blackboard.
That is not my lack of understanding, but yours. Both are tools for a teacher to use. How is this tool any different just because it appears to “talk back”? A powerpoint is more advanced than a book and a video more advanced than a still image. Teachers who dealt with the inventions at their time also thought it would change the job and the world completely. It didn’t.
it gets the job done better than a lot of teachers
Yeah you’re really going to have to back that one up. Especially since the data show otherwise
The oil crisis has an upside because using oil is actually bad for the environment. What’s the upside of millions of people losing their jobs?
Read my initial comment that you responded to… I’m not going to regurgitate shit because you can’t comprehend or remember.
And I’m not going to respond to your other comment, since I already told you to use just one thread. Paste it here or I won’t read it and it will just be a waste of your time.
And I responded to that reply in particular (i.e society adapting). You’re now trying to merge threads that were originally about different facets of the same conversation. I have a tendency to branch a lot in my trains of thought, to the point where ideally I should be making several comments to reply to you, but I thought two might be a more manageable amount.
Sure here you are.
So neither one of us is going to prove anything. But I’m wondering what quality do you think a teacher has that an actually functional future teaching AI can’t solve to at least 80% of the same capability for 10-20% of the cost, especially if you consider that the teacher can only attend to one student at a time, or address the whole class at once, but not attend to everyone’s individual questions and such at the same time. If there’s an average of about 25 students per class, 45 minutes a lesson, that’s less than 2 minutes per student per lesson. Except most of that time usually goes towards teaching the whole class, so really most students get zero individual attention/mentorship. Which is an easy problem to solve by hiring more teachers… But to get even a single new teacher in most countries with decent social systems, you first have to finance a master’s degree and then pay (in case of many European nations) union wages, which are actually pretty high compared to a lot of other jobs. And even then that person might decide not to stay in the role because teaching is very taxing work mentally, especially if you want to do it well. I know people who have worked in a school for a few years and then quit. Hell, I know a teacher who quit to work in straight up corporate tech support (and I do mean corporate: it was a B2B company, all the customers were companies), because that was… somehow less grueling. But make kids above a certain age be in classes of 50 or 70 instead of 20-30 and let AI do most of the work. You’ve suddenly eliminated close to half the teaching positions and it’s easier to fill all the positions with people who are truly so passionate about it that being degraded by unruly kids every day doesn’t burn them out.
That is not my lack of understanding, but yours. Both are tools for a teacher to use. How is this tool any different just because it appears to “talk back”?
How is a teacher any different just because it appears to “talk back”?
In the end both the teacher’s brain and the LLM powering a future teacherbot, are neural networks. And if we are to believe that we live in a deterministic universe, free will as we know it may not even be real - in which case we have more in common with AI than we think, we just have vastly more stimuli and past experiences affecting our output and are of course significantly more complex.
Yeah you’re really going to have to back that one up. Especially since the data show otherwise
Two studies from a nation already defunding its education (with individual states sabotaging their curricula too, since it’s not nationally standardized), highlighting trends that were taking place before even ChatGPT came out and people actually started talking about AI. I’m talking about future agents that will wrap the LLM into something that can actually be proactive in a classroom setting, not just reactive.
And I’m not going to respond to your other comment, since I already told you to use just one thread. Paste it here or I won’t read it and it will just be a waste of your time.
… You replied to two of my replies. I replied to your replies. The point of the thread system here is to keep things organized so we know which comment was replying to which comment. Otherwise we’d just be on an oldschool bbs. But fine, I’ll paste it here.
Yes. In response to your derogatory remarks. How does that make me have a god complex?
Which remarks exactly seemed derogatory to you?
Of course being a doctor is more interesting
Then why didn’t you choose a more meaningful job instead of the interesting one? You could be doing more with patients in person. It’s the nurses and orderlies who do most of the actual work in a hospital, from what I’ve seen the few times I’ve been in one.
Could it be that you found those jobs boring? Not challenging you in the right way? Why else did you not take one of those roles, given that they’re, by some standards, even more meaningful than that of a doctor? An orderly in particular requires much less education too, you could’ve jumped straight to helping people after high school if that was actually the primary metric by which you chose your job. I suspect you want to think that, but in reality you took the job that’s well paid and has the types of challenges that make you feel good when you solve them.
That sounds a lot like something that someone who doesn’t actually have a point would say. So, please humour me.
You: “Good, let 'em ruin themselves, we need the people in healthcare and education anyway.”
Millions of people are losing their jobs worldwide, many more have studied for 3 years to get a degree they won’t ever be able to use. You’re saying that’s a good thing. Why? Because in 5-10 years time, some companies might potentially go under for laying people off today and running out of the talent pool to hire from later? Those people need jobs now, and the healthcare system isn’t going to need that many, especially since much of the western world can’t afford its current healthcare systems right now.
Somehow a bunch of people losing their jobs is good because what, 2%, of them can grab vacant jobs in your industry? Hospitals employ a lot of people and there are vacancies like any other industry, but they’re not going to magically conjure up all the money to hire a bunch of new people just because they’d be beneficial to have around. And I’m not even going into education, because the vast majority of people working in education are teachers and teachers need a degree, usually a master’s in pedagogy. And like I said, that doesn’t even guarantee you’ll have a job for long now that governments are looking into using more AI to “make education more efficient” (cut costs).
And yet I’m the one “praising AI”. I’m the one saying that capitalists will fight to replace every worker they can with AI, you’re the one saying it’s somehow a good thing. The positives don’t even outweigh the negatives in the economic system we live in. Unless you’re part of the ownership class. I don’t know about you, but I’m not a billionaire so I’m not really benefiting here.
You start a sentence with that and expect me to read the rest of the gibberish
Pardon me, you just seemed ignorant of the whole issue of government efficiency being a thing taxpayers are usually looking for. Especially since, you know, taxes are actively being raised in some countries to be able to even afford the current spending. Or perhaps you handwaved it away because you understood it’s going to be hard to argue your point unless in a perfect world without ever-increasing financial pressures.
E.g here in Estonia, in the last 5 years we’ve had the income tax raised, VAT raised twice, and the price of medical visits (ER visits and first visit per case of a specialty doctor, but not GP visits) went from 5 euros to 20 euros to try to get people to go to the doctor. Oh and in the same timeframe we got a nice new vehicle tax (not a bad thing in of itself) that comes with a new registration tax that also applies retroactively to old cars if ownership is transferred (can be a couple hundred to a few thousand euros to transfer ownership of a car worth 500 for an example). AND public transit costs money for tickets again. And we’re STILL running a deficit, something Estonia didn’t really do in the past.
As a result, different government departments are always trying to save money whereever possible. That includes things like having more students per teacher so that fewer teachers need to be paid. And this is Estonia, our government debt is just under 25% of GDP. If you take for an example Belgium, a nation with some of the highest taxes in the EU, that also brings in tons of income from diplomats and MEPs spending money there), their debt is over 100% of GDP. Finland is going to be over 100% too. There’s no set debt to GDP ratio that’s bad, but the higher the debt, the higher the interest payments. And to pay the interest, there need to be more taxes.
Doctors being replaced with AI doesn’t mean they’re going to be all replaced at once, nor are they going to be explicitly “replaced” by AI like software engineers. Rather, individual doctors are going to be expected to do more because “you now have AI helping you”. Fewer young doctors will be hired because data will show that having X% fewer doctors of specialty Y per capita would result in only Z% fewer positive patient outcomes. Then in a few years, as AI tools get better, even fewer doctors will be needed. Etc. 2 years ago already we had an article here saying the national health insurance system found ways to save 21 million a year using “digital technologies and workforce reform”. They’re looking to either save another 100 million a year, or raise it via more taxation. Easiest way to do the former is to lay people off, which is what “workforce reform” really means.
If it seems to you that I ever implied that AI is going to replace doctors and teachers WITHOUT negatively affecting quality of care and education… Sorry, no, that’s not what I meant. I meant the savings are going to be so significant that governments will do it despite the reduction in quality. It’ll be deemed as “good enough”.
Call me a pessimist or whatever, but one thing governments and corporations have in common is that they like cutting costs at the expense of the common folk. Corporations will sell AI solutions to governments, who will have to take them because of the aging populace and therefore shrinking tax base.
> And I responded to that reply in particular (i.e society adapting)
I don’t care why it happened. Point is you tried to make this my fault…
> So neither one of us is going to prove anything.
This is not a “both sides” thing. You made a claim that it is enough to pretend to know something to teach someone else something, which is an outrageous claim. Yet you tried to put the burden of proof on me and when that didn’t stick try to share the blame. Not going to work and I’m not very fond of your bad faith arguments.
> But I’m wondering what quality do you think a teacher has that an actually functional future teaching AI can’t solve
We’re going around in circles. You already asked this and I already told you (hint: it’s the human element).
> How is a teacher any different just because it appears to “talk back”?
Uhm. I’m pretty sure a teacher knows what it’s saying and doesn’t appear to talk back but actually does.
> In the end both the teacher’s brain and the LLM
That doesn’t answer my question at all…
> Two studies from a nation already defunding its education…
Trying to pick apart the data that backs up what I said is not the same as backing up your own claim. Try a little harder.
> The point of the thread system here…
Yeah in comments between different users, not the same one.
> Which remarks exactly seemed derogatory to you?
Read my previous comment. And you didn’t answer how that made me into having a god complex…
> Then why didn’t you choose a more meaningful job instead of the interesting one?
I am doing the most meaningful one… there is not much difference within health care. There is however a large difference with corporate jobs, like I already mentioned in my first comment.
> Somehow a bunch of people losing their jobs is good because what, 2%, of them can grab vacant jobs in your industry?
Not good for those people in the short term obviously, but better for the world in the long run. And health care is just one example. There are many other sectors that could use human capital instead of something an AI could replace.
Yes economic hardship is coming in the near future, especially when the AI bubble bursts. But yes we will find a way to adapt in the long run, as we always have.
So how would I fund all the health care and other jobs? Large corporations are already hardly contributing anything, and if they’re not even providing jobs, the argument that they’re good for the economy is completely gone. That opens up a path to simply tax the hell out of these corps. And I know that it is not going to be as easy, but I also do not need to make an entire economic balance sheet for one comment on Lemmy. That is ridiculous.
> And yet I’m the one “praising AI”.
Indeed you are. I told you AI’s limitations, that they can’t be a person, can’t reason, can only fake having knowledge, can only fake interaction and understanding, only read a lot of books (or saw a lot of scans or EKGs or lab results, I know other AI’s other than LLMs exist doofus, I work with them on a daily basis) but that it doesn’t equal human experience that also incorporates a lot of stuff that you won’t learn in any book, especially in healthcare.
You on the other hand seem to think an AI is already doing a better job than teachers without anything to back it up. So yeah, praising AI beyond its capabilities.
> you just seemed ignorant of the whole issue of government efficiency being a thing taxpayers are usually looking for
Just because I don’t over explain everything like you do doesn’t mean I’m ignorant. This is just more of your own god complex showing, your own arrogance and ignorance like I already told you a bunch of times. And you wonder why I’m annoyed with you? This is not how you have a constructive discussion. So either keep your arrogance in check or you can discuss with yourself.
You also seem to have forgotten a teeny tiny problem here: an influx of patients because of aging baby boomers. The baby boom is about to turn into a health care boom. The first baby boomers are already nearing 80 years old. They will not stop presenting themselves to hospitals or care facilities because you or society doesn’t want to spend the money on it. This definitely means we will need more people in the short to medium term. Especially the people that you consider “janitors” or “factory workers”.
> Doctors being replaced with AI doesn’t mean…
You also don’t need to mansplain this to me. This is a daily topic of discussion at the hospital where I work.
I don’t care why it happened. Point is you tried to make this my fault…
Why is that even something we need to assign blame for? I replied to your reply, because it was on a different subject. It was supposed to be a different discussion than the healthcare one, until you decided to merge them. You want one discussion, I wanted two different ones. Big deal, let’s move on.
This is not a “both sides” thing. You made a claim that it is enough to pretend to know something to teach someone else something, which is an outrageous claim. Yet you tried to put the burden of proof on me and when that didn’t stick try to share the blame. Not going to work and I’m not very fond of your bad faith arguments.
This is something that we’re only going to be finding out in the future. But like I said, I don’t expect AI to be as good as actually good teachers. I do expect it to be cheaper though. And good teachers aren’t ubiquitous. There’s currently no data either way, but you’re saying it’s impossible, I’m saying it’s probably not and government’s gonna want to save money.
We’re going around in circles. You already asked this and I already told you (hint: it’s the human element).
Seen plenty of teachers in my time in school who had very little human element in their lessons. Plus like I said, they don’t actually have time for their students.
Uhm. I’m pretty sure a teacher knows what it’s saying and doesn’t appear to talk back but actually does.
And where does a teacher’s knowledge come from? If the answer is books and studies, I have excellent news, LLMs have been trained on more of those than a human could ever learn.
Trying to pick apart the data that backs up what I said is not the same as backing up your own claim. Try a little harder.
What was the point of your data though? It’s irrelevant, it has nothing to do with what I’m saying.
What I’m saying is that LLMs are cheaper than humans. I’m also saying that the quality of teaching will soon be “good enough”. Who decides what’s good enough? Bureaucrats in the government. It’s subjective. There’s no exact standard.
Yeah in comments between different users, not the same one.
ORRRR you can use different comment chains to reply about different subjects. There’s no rule of one comment per user lol
Read my previous comment.
You just said you had a problem with me saying I dislike menial work. I never insulted you. I never insulted the people you work with, who I’m pretty sure work much harder than you or me. I said I’m incapable of doing that type of work because it’d bore me to death.
Not good for those people in the short term obviously, but better for the world in the long run. And health care is just one example. There are many other sectors that could use human capital instead of something an AI could replace.
Yes, but unfortunately only physical jobs are now safe from AI. 5 years ago we didn’t imagine software engineers being replaced by AI anytime soon. Now we don’t imagine subpar software engineers having jobs in a few years.
And health care is just one example. There are many other sectors that could use human capital instead of something an AI could replace.
And they’ll also be under fire from AI.
Indeed you are. I told you AI’s limitations, that they can’t be a person, can’t reason, can only fake having knowledge, can only fake interaction and understanding
But what matters are the results and the cost, not the actual understanding. If an AI has a similar success rate in diagnosis and treatment compared to a doctor, but is significantly cheaper and can be scaled up and down to see more or fewer patients depending on need.
AI doesn’t understand art either, yet artists are being replaced. AI doesn’t understand code either, yet software engineers aren’t being hired anymore… And we used to think we’d be the last to be replaced, since we’re the ones actually creating it. That was our hubris. You’re now where I was a few years ago with yours.
only read a lot of books (or saw a lot of scans or EKGs or lab results
And it’s being trained off EVERY scan and EKG in the future. You only see those of your patients and maybe a few other study cases. AI will learn from millions. Which is the reason it’ll be able to mostly perform diagnostics without even understanding what it’s doing.
I know other AI’s other than LLMs exist doofus, I work with them on a daily basis
Yet you implied all they have is book knowledge. You should then know there are far more accurate types of AI than LLMs, and we’re only getting better at creating them.
but that it doesn’t equal human experience that also incorporates a lot of stuff that you won’t learn in any book, especially in healthcare.
You just admitted that you realize they don’t just learn from books. Once the deals are there (and the big AI companies are already working with governments so it won’t be long), they’ll literally be trained on your experience as you document everything in your EMR software. So why pretend it’s only ever going to be stuff learned “in any book”?
Just because I don’t over explain everything like you do doesn’t mean I’m ignorant.
Well you’re simply handwaving important issues away, so I was hoping you were ignorant, but turns out you’re just arguing in bad faith.
You also don’t need to mansplain this to me. This is a daily topic of discussion at the hospital where I work.
A daily discussion and yet you think it’ll be impossible for it to happen? Alrighty then.
The god complex I mentioned is your idea that you’re irreplaceable. You’re not. I’m not. None of us are. You and I are easier to replace than a construction worker, plumber or electrician. We’re not coming out of this without abolishing private property. Taxation won’t save anything, because corporations can’t have significant revenue taxes for fairly obvious reasons and profit taxes are too easy to skirt. VAT works the best, but good luck selling the general population on increasing that, it’s too visible in how it affects prices.
There’s currently no data either way, but you’re saying it’s impossible
What I said it is that the AI doesn’t understand things, doesn’t get what someone is saying. AI in its current form doesn’t understand a person. That is fact. I literally never said that it would not be possible in the future.
This is something that we’re only going to be finding out in the future.
The claim you made was that AI is better than a portion of teachers right now and that is what I denied. How is it not a big deal when it turns out you’re simply wrong? How about we move on after you agree you were wrong?
Seen plenty of teachers in my time in school who had very little human element in their lessons.
That is your biased interpretation. They were still humans and not computers.
And where does a teacher’s knowledge come from?
Can’t you figure that out for yourself? I don’t really get the feeling you really like to challenge yourself mentally, as this is an easy question to answer with a little brain work.
But fine: in the beginning their formal training as a teacher, as taught by other, more experienced teacher. And after a few years on the job their own experience as well. Reducing it to just books is a straw man argument that even you know is utter bullshit.
What was the point of your data though? It’s irrelevant, it has nothing to do with what I’m saying.
It has everything to do with what you were saying, since you claimed that the AI was already doing better than the bottom part of teachers. So why are we not seeing an improvement in education results from the time they were implemented? Strange how things are irrelevant when they disprove your claim. You’re arguing in bad faith again.
What I’m saying is that LLMs are cheaper than humans.
Now that is irrelevant because we were discussing that you though AI was doing better than teachers. Now you want to bring money into this? And I thought I couldn’t say you were praising AI? Then why do you keep doing it?
Yes, but unfortunately only physical jobs are now safe from AI
Nonsense. We have broadly discussed teaching and there are many other jobs that require physical communication with another human.
AI will learn from millions.
But it will still not understand. Which is what is necessary to make the translation from data to patients.
AI can read a gazillion scans and put out a result with a confidence % or whatever. But in the end the decision needs to be made what is best for this individual patient. It only knows books, guidelines and scans. That is not the hard part of medicine. It’s weighing all the options and information and deciding for each patient what needs to be done, taking into account a lot of factors that necessitate human interaction. This is where big data fails and the human element comes in. This is also what you fail to understand.
You also need a human to explain things to a patient. We are experiencing more and more patients every day who put their health complaints through ChatGPT and don’t understand an iota of what it’s saying and draw their own conclusions that cannot be drawn. You cannot bombard a patient with data and information like ChatGPT. You’re way too stuck in your own
but turns out you’re just arguing in bad faith
LOL nice “no u” coming from mister cognitive challenge
you think it’ll be impossible for it to happen? Alrighty then.
Yes that would be pretty foolish of me to think. Good thing I never said that. More straw manning.
The god complex I mentioned is your idea that you’re irreplaceable.
Never said that, nor hold this idea. Look above why a computer can never replace a person, since as I already mentioned a 1000 times, it lacks the human aspect. This is not something that is specific to me, so I don’t know why you’re making this about me specifically.
profit taxes are too easy to skirt
And that is impossible to change?
Edit: if all you’ve got is straw man arguments we’re done here.
When did I ever say AI would be better than humans in general? I said it’s better than some humans and significantly cheaper than humans. You say I’m using strawmans, yet you’re not arguing the points I’m actually making, only the ones you want me to be making so you could win. Bye bye, I’m out.
I responded to this comment. You interjected yourself into that. Also, have some dignity and don’t do a “no u”. You’re an adult for christs sake.
Sure here you are.
You kinda did by calling other people’s work janitorial and factory work as if that was a bad thing.
That is not my lack of understanding, but yours. Both are tools for a teacher to use. How is this tool any different just because it appears to “talk back”? A powerpoint is more advanced than a book and a video more advanced than a still image. Teachers who dealt with the inventions at their time also thought it would change the job and the world completely. It didn’t.
Yeah you’re really going to have to back that one up. Especially since the data show otherwise
Read my initial comment that you responded to… I’m not going to regurgitate shit because you can’t comprehend or remember.
And I’m not going to respond to your other comment, since I already told you to use just one thread. Paste it here or I won’t read it and it will just be a waste of your time.
And I responded to that reply in particular (i.e society adapting). You’re now trying to merge threads that were originally about different facets of the same conversation. I have a tendency to branch a lot in my trains of thought, to the point where ideally I should be making several comments to reply to you, but I thought two might be a more manageable amount.
So neither one of us is going to prove anything. But I’m wondering what quality do you think a teacher has that an actually functional future teaching AI can’t solve to at least 80% of the same capability for 10-20% of the cost, especially if you consider that the teacher can only attend to one student at a time, or address the whole class at once, but not attend to everyone’s individual questions and such at the same time. If there’s an average of about 25 students per class, 45 minutes a lesson, that’s less than 2 minutes per student per lesson. Except most of that time usually goes towards teaching the whole class, so really most students get zero individual attention/mentorship. Which is an easy problem to solve by hiring more teachers… But to get even a single new teacher in most countries with decent social systems, you first have to finance a master’s degree and then pay (in case of many European nations) union wages, which are actually pretty high compared to a lot of other jobs. And even then that person might decide not to stay in the role because teaching is very taxing work mentally, especially if you want to do it well. I know people who have worked in a school for a few years and then quit. Hell, I know a teacher who quit to work in straight up corporate tech support (and I do mean corporate: it was a B2B company, all the customers were companies), because that was… somehow less grueling. But make kids above a certain age be in classes of 50 or 70 instead of 20-30 and let AI do most of the work. You’ve suddenly eliminated close to half the teaching positions and it’s easier to fill all the positions with people who are truly so passionate about it that being degraded by unruly kids every day doesn’t burn them out.
How is a teacher any different just because it appears to “talk back”?
In the end both the teacher’s brain and the LLM powering a future teacherbot, are neural networks. And if we are to believe that we live in a deterministic universe, free will as we know it may not even be real - in which case we have more in common with AI than we think, we just have vastly more stimuli and past experiences affecting our output and are of course significantly more complex.
Two studies from a nation already defunding its education (with individual states sabotaging their curricula too, since it’s not nationally standardized), highlighting trends that were taking place before even ChatGPT came out and people actually started talking about AI. I’m talking about future agents that will wrap the LLM into something that can actually be proactive in a classroom setting, not just reactive.
… You replied to two of my replies. I replied to your replies. The point of the thread system here is to keep things organized so we know which comment was replying to which comment. Otherwise we’d just be on an oldschool bbs. But fine, I’ll paste it here.
Which remarks exactly seemed derogatory to you?
Then why didn’t you choose a more meaningful job instead of the interesting one? You could be doing more with patients in person. It’s the nurses and orderlies who do most of the actual work in a hospital, from what I’ve seen the few times I’ve been in one.
Could it be that you found those jobs boring? Not challenging you in the right way? Why else did you not take one of those roles, given that they’re, by some standards, even more meaningful than that of a doctor? An orderly in particular requires much less education too, you could’ve jumped straight to helping people after high school if that was actually the primary metric by which you chose your job. I suspect you want to think that, but in reality you took the job that’s well paid and has the types of challenges that make you feel good when you solve them.
You: “Good, let 'em ruin themselves, we need the people in healthcare and education anyway.”
Millions of people are losing their jobs worldwide, many more have studied for 3 years to get a degree they won’t ever be able to use. You’re saying that’s a good thing. Why? Because in 5-10 years time, some companies might potentially go under for laying people off today and running out of the talent pool to hire from later? Those people need jobs now, and the healthcare system isn’t going to need that many, especially since much of the western world can’t afford its current healthcare systems right now.
Somehow a bunch of people losing their jobs is good because what, 2%, of them can grab vacant jobs in your industry? Hospitals employ a lot of people and there are vacancies like any other industry, but they’re not going to magically conjure up all the money to hire a bunch of new people just because they’d be beneficial to have around. And I’m not even going into education, because the vast majority of people working in education are teachers and teachers need a degree, usually a master’s in pedagogy. And like I said, that doesn’t even guarantee you’ll have a job for long now that governments are looking into using more AI to “make education more efficient” (cut costs).
And yet I’m the one “praising AI”. I’m the one saying that capitalists will fight to replace every worker they can with AI, you’re the one saying it’s somehow a good thing. The positives don’t even outweigh the negatives in the economic system we live in. Unless you’re part of the ownership class. I don’t know about you, but I’m not a billionaire so I’m not really benefiting here.
Pardon me, you just seemed ignorant of the whole issue of government efficiency being a thing taxpayers are usually looking for. Especially since, you know, taxes are actively being raised in some countries to be able to even afford the current spending. Or perhaps you handwaved it away because you understood it’s going to be hard to argue your point unless in a perfect world without ever-increasing financial pressures.
E.g here in Estonia, in the last 5 years we’ve had the income tax raised, VAT raised twice, and the price of medical visits (ER visits and first visit per case of a specialty doctor, but not GP visits) went from 5 euros to 20 euros to try to get people to go to the doctor. Oh and in the same timeframe we got a nice new vehicle tax (not a bad thing in of itself) that comes with a new registration tax that also applies retroactively to old cars if ownership is transferred (can be a couple hundred to a few thousand euros to transfer ownership of a car worth 500 for an example). AND public transit costs money for tickets again. And we’re STILL running a deficit, something Estonia didn’t really do in the past.
As a result, different government departments are always trying to save money whereever possible. That includes things like having more students per teacher so that fewer teachers need to be paid. And this is Estonia, our government debt is just under 25% of GDP. If you take for an example Belgium, a nation with some of the highest taxes in the EU, that also brings in tons of income from diplomats and MEPs spending money there), their debt is over 100% of GDP. Finland is going to be over 100% too. There’s no set debt to GDP ratio that’s bad, but the higher the debt, the higher the interest payments. And to pay the interest, there need to be more taxes.
Doctors being replaced with AI doesn’t mean they’re going to be all replaced at once, nor are they going to be explicitly “replaced” by AI like software engineers. Rather, individual doctors are going to be expected to do more because “you now have AI helping you”. Fewer young doctors will be hired because data will show that having X% fewer doctors of specialty Y per capita would result in only Z% fewer positive patient outcomes. Then in a few years, as AI tools get better, even fewer doctors will be needed. Etc. 2 years ago already we had an article here saying the national health insurance system found ways to save 21 million a year using “digital technologies and workforce reform”. They’re looking to either save another 100 million a year, or raise it via more taxation. Easiest way to do the former is to lay people off, which is what “workforce reform” really means.
If it seems to you that I ever implied that AI is going to replace doctors and teachers WITHOUT negatively affecting quality of care and education… Sorry, no, that’s not what I meant. I meant the savings are going to be so significant that governments will do it despite the reduction in quality. It’ll be deemed as “good enough”.
Call me a pessimist or whatever, but one thing governments and corporations have in common is that they like cutting costs at the expense of the common folk. Corporations will sell AI solutions to governments, who will have to take them because of the aging populace and therefore shrinking tax base.
> And I responded to that reply in particular (i.e society adapting)
I don’t care why it happened. Point is you tried to make this my fault…
> So neither one of us is going to prove anything.
This is not a “both sides” thing. You made a claim that it is enough to pretend to know something to teach someone else something, which is an outrageous claim. Yet you tried to put the burden of proof on me and when that didn’t stick try to share the blame. Not going to work and I’m not very fond of your bad faith arguments.
> But I’m wondering what quality do you think a teacher has that an actually functional future teaching AI can’t solve
We’re going around in circles. You already asked this and I already told you (hint: it’s the human element).
> How is a teacher any different just because it appears to “talk back”?
Uhm. I’m pretty sure a teacher knows what it’s saying and doesn’t appear to talk back but actually does.
> In the end both the teacher’s brain and the LLM
That doesn’t answer my question at all…
> Two studies from a nation already defunding its education…
Trying to pick apart the data that backs up what I said is not the same as backing up your own claim. Try a little harder.
> The point of the thread system here…
Yeah in comments between different users, not the same one.
> Which remarks exactly seemed derogatory to you?
Read my previous comment. And you didn’t answer how that made me into having a god complex…
> Then why didn’t you choose a more meaningful job instead of the interesting one?
I am doing the most meaningful one… there is not much difference within health care. There is however a large difference with corporate jobs, like I already mentioned in my first comment.
> Somehow a bunch of people losing their jobs is good because what, 2%, of them can grab vacant jobs in your industry?
Not good for those people in the short term obviously, but better for the world in the long run. And health care is just one example. There are many other sectors that could use human capital instead of something an AI could replace.
Yes economic hardship is coming in the near future, especially when the AI bubble bursts. But yes we will find a way to adapt in the long run, as we always have.
So how would I fund all the health care and other jobs? Large corporations are already hardly contributing anything, and if they’re not even providing jobs, the argument that they’re good for the economy is completely gone. That opens up a path to simply tax the hell out of these corps. And I know that it is not going to be as easy, but I also do not need to make an entire economic balance sheet for one comment on Lemmy. That is ridiculous.
> And yet I’m the one “praising AI”.
Indeed you are. I told you AI’s limitations, that they can’t be a person, can’t reason, can only fake having knowledge, can only fake interaction and understanding, only read a lot of books (or saw a lot of scans or EKGs or lab results, I know other AI’s other than LLMs exist doofus, I work with them on a daily basis) but that it doesn’t equal human experience that also incorporates a lot of stuff that you won’t learn in any book, especially in healthcare.
You on the other hand seem to think an AI is already doing a better job than teachers without anything to back it up. So yeah, praising AI beyond its capabilities.
> you just seemed ignorant of the whole issue of government efficiency being a thing taxpayers are usually looking for
Just because I don’t over explain everything like you do doesn’t mean I’m ignorant. This is just more of your own god complex showing, your own arrogance and ignorance like I already told you a bunch of times. And you wonder why I’m annoyed with you? This is not how you have a constructive discussion. So either keep your arrogance in check or you can discuss with yourself.
You also seem to have forgotten a teeny tiny problem here: an influx of patients because of aging baby boomers. The baby boom is about to turn into a health care boom. The first baby boomers are already nearing 80 years old. They will not stop presenting themselves to hospitals or care facilities because you or society doesn’t want to spend the money on it. This definitely means we will need more people in the short to medium term. Especially the people that you consider “janitors” or “factory workers”.
> Doctors being replaced with AI doesn’t mean…
You also don’t need to mansplain this to me. This is a daily topic of discussion at the hospital where I work.
Why is that even something we need to assign blame for? I replied to your reply, because it was on a different subject. It was supposed to be a different discussion than the healthcare one, until you decided to merge them. You want one discussion, I wanted two different ones. Big deal, let’s move on.
This is something that we’re only going to be finding out in the future. But like I said, I don’t expect AI to be as good as actually good teachers. I do expect it to be cheaper though. And good teachers aren’t ubiquitous. There’s currently no data either way, but you’re saying it’s impossible, I’m saying it’s probably not and government’s gonna want to save money.
Seen plenty of teachers in my time in school who had very little human element in their lessons. Plus like I said, they don’t actually have time for their students.
And where does a teacher’s knowledge come from? If the answer is books and studies, I have excellent news, LLMs have been trained on more of those than a human could ever learn.
What was the point of your data though? It’s irrelevant, it has nothing to do with what I’m saying.
What I’m saying is that LLMs are cheaper than humans. I’m also saying that the quality of teaching will soon be “good enough”. Who decides what’s good enough? Bureaucrats in the government. It’s subjective. There’s no exact standard.
ORRRR you can use different comment chains to reply about different subjects. There’s no rule of one comment per user lol
You just said you had a problem with me saying I dislike menial work. I never insulted you. I never insulted the people you work with, who I’m pretty sure work much harder than you or me. I said I’m incapable of doing that type of work because it’d bore me to death.
Yes, but unfortunately only physical jobs are now safe from AI. 5 years ago we didn’t imagine software engineers being replaced by AI anytime soon. Now we don’t imagine subpar software engineers having jobs in a few years.
And they’ll also be under fire from AI.
But what matters are the results and the cost, not the actual understanding. If an AI has a similar success rate in diagnosis and treatment compared to a doctor, but is significantly cheaper and can be scaled up and down to see more or fewer patients depending on need.
AI doesn’t understand art either, yet artists are being replaced. AI doesn’t understand code either, yet software engineers aren’t being hired anymore… And we used to think we’d be the last to be replaced, since we’re the ones actually creating it. That was our hubris. You’re now where I was a few years ago with yours.
And it’s being trained off EVERY scan and EKG in the future. You only see those of your patients and maybe a few other study cases. AI will learn from millions. Which is the reason it’ll be able to mostly perform diagnostics without even understanding what it’s doing.
Yet you implied all they have is book knowledge. You should then know there are far more accurate types of AI than LLMs, and we’re only getting better at creating them.
You just admitted that you realize they don’t just learn from books. Once the deals are there (and the big AI companies are already working with governments so it won’t be long), they’ll literally be trained on your experience as you document everything in your EMR software. So why pretend it’s only ever going to be stuff learned “in any book”?
Well you’re simply handwaving important issues away, so I was hoping you were ignorant, but turns out you’re just arguing in bad faith.
A daily discussion and yet you think it’ll be impossible for it to happen? Alrighty then.
The god complex I mentioned is your idea that you’re irreplaceable. You’re not. I’m not. None of us are. You and I are easier to replace than a construction worker, plumber or electrician. We’re not coming out of this without abolishing private property. Taxation won’t save anything, because corporations can’t have significant revenue taxes for fairly obvious reasons and profit taxes are too easy to skirt. VAT works the best, but good luck selling the general population on increasing that, it’s too visible in how it affects prices.
What I said it is that the AI doesn’t understand things, doesn’t get what someone is saying. AI in its current form doesn’t understand a person. That is fact. I literally never said that it would not be possible in the future.
The claim you made was that AI is better than a portion of teachers right now and that is what I denied. How is it not a big deal when it turns out you’re simply wrong? How about we move on after you agree you were wrong?
That is your biased interpretation. They were still humans and not computers.
Can’t you figure that out for yourself? I don’t really get the feeling you really like to challenge yourself mentally, as this is an easy question to answer with a little brain work.
But fine: in the beginning their formal training as a teacher, as taught by other, more experienced teacher. And after a few years on the job their own experience as well. Reducing it to just books is a straw man argument that even you know is utter bullshit.
It has everything to do with what you were saying, since you claimed that the AI was already doing better than the bottom part of teachers. So why are we not seeing an improvement in education results from the time they were implemented? Strange how things are irrelevant when they disprove your claim. You’re arguing in bad faith again.
Now that is irrelevant because we were discussing that you though AI was doing better than teachers. Now you want to bring money into this? And I thought I couldn’t say you were praising AI? Then why do you keep doing it?
Nonsense. We have broadly discussed teaching and there are many other jobs that require physical communication with another human.
But it will still not understand. Which is what is necessary to make the translation from data to patients.
AI can read a gazillion scans and put out a result with a confidence % or whatever. But in the end the decision needs to be made what is best for this individual patient. It only knows books, guidelines and scans. That is not the hard part of medicine. It’s weighing all the options and information and deciding for each patient what needs to be done, taking into account a lot of factors that necessitate human interaction. This is where big data fails and the human element comes in. This is also what you fail to understand.
You also need a human to explain things to a patient. We are experiencing more and more patients every day who put their health complaints through ChatGPT and don’t understand an iota of what it’s saying and draw their own conclusions that cannot be drawn. You cannot bombard a patient with data and information like ChatGPT. You’re way too stuck in your own
LOL nice “no u” coming from mister cognitive challenge
Yes that would be pretty foolish of me to think. Good thing I never said that. More straw manning.
Never said that, nor hold this idea. Look above why a computer can never replace a person, since as I already mentioned a 1000 times, it lacks the human aspect. This is not something that is specific to me, so I don’t know why you’re making this about me specifically.
And that is impossible to change?
Edit: if all you’ve got is straw man arguments we’re done here.
When did I ever say AI would be better than humans in general? I said it’s better than some humans and significantly cheaper than humans. You say I’m using strawmans, yet you’re not arguing the points I’m actually making, only the ones you want me to be making so you could win. Bye bye, I’m out.
When did I say you said humans in general?