10 ms·
I read the article, in my book the option of sending out a mass email of "you have cancer" should have been impossible. If a test showed that there is potential
by cycomanic 3y ago
I read the article, in my book the option of sending out a mass email of "you have cancer" should have been impossible. If a test showed that there is potential for cancer the email should have always been written by a real human. Instead it seems the "you have cancer" template sits in the same system with all the other "customer engagement" emails. If that's not a "sign of moving fast and break things" then I don't know. These different topics should have been compartmentalised into totally different departments that don't have anything to do with each other.
- Al-Khwarizmi 3y agoIf you're sending thousands of emails with essentially identical content, it seems pointless to me to have them written by a human. Can you imagine the job of a human writing different wordings for "you have cancer" hundreds of times per day? Is that what we should be using humans for?
- wpietri 3y agoThey have already explained the point. It's reducing the number of people who are incorrectly told they may soon die a horrible death. If there are better ways to prevent that than a human-in-the-loop approach, feel free to propose it. But having watched it happen a couple of times, I'll note that actual doctors deliver cancer diagnoses in person, so it's not unreasonable to think that should continue to be the case.