People need to be able to believe they can still make the leap of awareness in their career - even if the machine produces better diagnosis, this is on one hand

People need to be able to believe they can still make the leap of awareness in their career - even if the machine produces better diagnosis, this is on one hand, no different than referencing a book. People need to be able to learn with the machine in order to yield skill that exceeds what AI can presently do. Unfortunately, as I'm finding, lots of that stuff tests my own knowledge. My IDE gives me a complexity score on some of the functions I write. It's easy to focus on lowering that number, it's hard to actually know 'is this metric actually helping me write better code for my specific environment?' A metric like that is a piece of data. So is anything a machine is going to produce. It's going to come in a different form, Oracle machines in some ways seem to be an actual thing these days, in that I have to ask myself why - why do all the words I search line up in this specific way? Why does that produce some thoughts I have? How do I know what I know? How can I test that? I think humans can adapt to anything. I think we retain that flexibity as long as we are up for the challenge. That may seem like common sense or folk wisdom, but, there's probably good reasons stuff like that sticks around. Saying to your radiologist friend that the computer is better and faster than she is flat out puts the entire security of her future - everything she has built into - on a coin toss. Of course she's going to react defensively. If you punch your hand into someone's chest and hold their heart out in front of them - yes, they will likely have difficulty thinking objectively. People can adapt. It is often very challenging. But it's often also worth changing, if the question of progress versus stagnation is the thing at stake. People who go into medicine want to save lives, so work with that foundation. Rather than who is going to get sued, direct the conversation towards how many more lives can be saved. It's the same argument as self driving cars. The problem is as we age, we think we have control over permanent stuff. If we crash the car, that's our fault. If the car crashes the car, that's something we have no control over. But sometimes we might have a random seizure. We don't think about those probabilities when it comes to us driving the car versus the car driving the car, because we become accustomed to a context. But that's just an illusion until shit changes. I'd rather be aware of the easy and obvious changes in a conservative fashion, than totally ignorant to the hard ones until catastrophe I didn't see coming happens.