4 ms·
> In my opinion being 100,000x lower cost gives such a system some leeway in being worse and I think most patients would agree. I would heavily disagree with t
by SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
> In my opinion being 100,000x lower cost gives such a system some leeway in being worse and I think most patients would agree.
I would heavily disagree with this. We had an AI counselor actively encouraging disordered eating and triggering people into relapse on an eating disorder helpline from logic like this.
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoWhile I understand that some will disagree, it’s not like there’s an objective standard against which we are measuring both the AI and the human counselors to begin with. Without a standard it’s just anecdotes and with a standard there’s clarity on when the increased costs no longer justify the lower access and potentially higher quality. I suspect that if we instituted an objective standard we would find that AI is already capable of meeting or exceeding some proportion of people currently employed in the role today.
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y agoThis cannot possibly be the case when there was a clear A/B test scenario here. AI was dropped in, nothing else changed about the website, suddenly cases of relapse and worsening conditions went up.
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoI think you're confusing my statement that "it could be done well" with "your team did it well"
- explaininjs 3y agoAnd I’m very familiar with AMA-certified (TM) “doctors” who have done the same.
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y agoIn this case there’s a fairly clear A/B test where if we dropped in an AI instead of hired counselors, the number of negative outcomes went up.