3 ms·

Can’t argue with this genius quadrant though: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.a

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• 29athrowaway 4y ago
  An expert system can answer many of the questions a doctor can. Yet people choose to go to the doctor. Many people are already using automated tax preparation tools. Yet tax preparers are still needed. There are already customer support chatbots. Yet people often want to talk to a representative. A smarter versions of those will probably be game changers but for high-stakes situations you will still want to deal with a human expert. If you have an infected limb that is at risk of being amputated, will you go see DoctorGPT? Hell no.
  • kolinko 4y ago
    People don’t choose to go to a doctor. They are not given a choice of using the expert system - even if they can’t afford a doctor. Chatbots for customer support never worked right, so it wasn’t a choice either. With gpt-powered bots, many - if not most will choose that over calling a helpline.
• ZephyrBlu 4y ago
  I think the cost of software production should go down so it's accessible to more people, but these quadrants are stupid. The job of lawyers and doctors are less predictable than software engineers? I don't believe that for a second. If AI comes for SWE jobs it's coming for a hell of a lot more white collar jobs as well.