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.
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?