76 ms·
> Unless you talk about the sentient, human level kind that managed to become uncontrollable The poster I responded to claims 80% human job elimination by AI.
by landryraccoon 7y ago
> Unless you talk about the sentient, human level kind that managed to become uncontrollable
The poster I responded to claims 80% human job elimination by AI. That implied AI that is better than human for the vast majority of jobs. We’re well past the threshold for Westworld style general AI if we get even close to endangering 80% of human jobs.
- p1esk 7y agoNo. You can probably have various specialized AIs take over 99% of all jobs, and still not be anywhere close to AGI, or “strong AI”.
- landryraccoon 7y agoI’m skeptical. Do you have an argument to back up that claim? Doctors and nurses that provide direct healthcare are more than 1% of workers, are you saying AGI that replaces a doctor can’t be considered “strong AI”?
- p1esk 7y agoA doctor performs a well defined task: he collects data about a patient as inputs to his mental model, and produces diagnosis as the output (and selects a treatment based on established guidelines for the diagnosis, and relevant patient characteristics). I don't see anything in this process that requires AGI. In fact I think a doctor is one of the easier professions to automate, and it will probably be automated relatively soon. Nurses which provide emotional support to patients might be harder to replace with AI, but that too will change as AI starts to become more and more "human-like" (i.e. more complex), but not necessarily AGI level.
- landryraccoon 7y agoSpeaking as someone who works in the space, this is wildly optimistic. All I can say is your view of AI is pretty off. You need pretty fantastic AI just to understand what a patient is telling a doctor, let alone make a diagnosis.
- p1esk 7y agoLooking at national stats for medical errors, and given how bad most doctors I interacted with are at listening, and making diagnosis, I'd say the bar for AI is set pretty low.