• joe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 hours ago

    To be clear, I didn’t mean to imply that AI was flawless or had no room for improvement, only that it has made real, tangible improvements. This is why it shouldn’t be used as a replacement for humans, but as a tool for humans.

    • Nausicaa Rose@xoxo.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 hours ago

      @joe Please cite your sources. What improvements? How were these improvements tested, studied, and documented? Where were the results published?

          • joe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 hours ago

            I see. You would rather feel correct than be correct. That’s not a wise strategy.

            The studies I allude to exist or don’t independently from whether I spoon feed them to you.

            Good to know.

            • Nausicaa Rose@xoxo.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 hours ago

              @joe If you were knowledgeable about medical AI & acting in good faith you’d have no trouble supplying sources to support your assertions & no reluctance to do so. It’s a super basic part of serious discussions.

              I provide multiple sources on the real dangers of using AI for medical purposes. All I asked was for you to do the same.

              Instead you resort to evasion and an ad hominem attack.

              If you have any serious, evidence-based thing to say, I’m happy to read it. Otherwise, have a good day.