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.
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?