5 ms·

Let's see how the AI haters here are going to spin this one...

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
It is a worthwhile practice to open one’s mind to disagreeable views to find where their disagreement lies. If you were to spin this against ChatGPT, would you really have nothing to say?
- rowanG077 3y ago
  Yes it's very important to have an open mind. I'm very curious how the AI haters will spin chatGPT diagnosing a kid while 17 doctors could not in anything but a win for AI.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    I’m curious what you find so disagreeable. What arguments do you think are the strongest against AI in this context and why do you disagree?
rafaelero 3y ago
What explains people's knee jerk reaction to something as awesome as this? It's weird reading comments here.
- rowanG077 3y ago
  Because everytime a positive AI article is posted people come out of the woodworks trying to paint the current state of AI in the most negative light possible.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    It's early, but I don't see any comments like that so far.
  - rafaelero 3y ago
    I feel bad for them.
fungiblecog 3y ago
One anecdote is not data. You need controlled trials that include both correct and incorrect diagnoses not just a headline
- corethree 3y ago
  Wrong. One anecdote is one data point. If one person witnesses a murder that is a data point. The court doesn't just dismiss the data point because they need a sample size of 1000 witnesses for any statement to be meaningful. This article here says something meaningful about AI and it also says something damning about doctors. Also there have been studies: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019606442300642X?dgcid=author#fig1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01960...
  - rvz 3y ago
    Wrong again. This is a case of reliability and just because there is one anecdote of the 'correct' diagnosis, it hardly means it is reliable overall. In fact you wouldn't use these AI systems and trust their judgement at face value without the involvement of human doctors because by default, you don't trust their outputs. This is on top of the fact that these AI systems are unexplainable black boxes which cannot transparently reason and explain their own decisions. It also appears that this 'research' study is quite frankly a surface level one with an extremely low sample size of 30 rather than the 1,000 sample size you suggested in your example. So I can only dismiss that study since it is not sufficient enough to result in conclusive evidence of reliability.
    - corethree 3y ago
      You are dismissing the study not because you need 1000 samples. You are dismissing it because you're biased. 30 witnesses to a murder is highly reliable. Any judge or court who denies that is biased. 17 doctors who couldn't diagnose a simple issue for 10 years is a demonstration of total unreliability.
      - 3y ago

It is a worthwhile practice to open one’s mind to disagreeable views to find where their disagreement lies. If you were to spin this against ChatGPT, would you really have nothing to say?

rowanG077 3y ago
Yes it's very important to have an open mind. I'm very curious how the AI haters will spin chatGPT diagnosing a kid while 17 doctors could not in anything but a win for AI.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  I’m curious what you find so disagreeable. What arguments do you think are the strongest against AI in this context and why do you disagree?

rafaelero 3y ago

What explains people's knee jerk reaction to something as awesome as this? It's weird reading comments here.

rowanG077 3y ago
Because everytime a positive AI article is posted people come out of the woodworks trying to paint the current state of AI in the most negative light possible.
- Clubber 3y ago
  It's early, but I don't see any comments like that so far.
- rafaelero 3y ago
  I feel bad for them.

fungiblecog 3y ago

One anecdote is not data. You need controlled trials that include both correct and incorrect diagnoses not just a headline

corethree 3y ago
Wrong. One anecdote is one data point. If one person witnesses a murder that is a data point. The court doesn't just dismiss the data point because they need a sample size of 1000 witnesses for any statement to be meaningful. This article here says something meaningful about AI and it also says something damning about doctors. Also there have been studies: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019606442300642X?dgcid=author#fig1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01960...
- rvz 3y ago
  Wrong again. This is a case of reliability and just because there is one anecdote of the 'correct' diagnosis, it hardly means it is reliable overall. In fact you wouldn't use these AI systems and trust their judgement at face value without the involvement of human doctors because by default, you don't trust their outputs. This is on top of the fact that these AI systems are unexplainable black boxes which cannot transparently reason and explain their own decisions. It also appears that this 'research' study is quite frankly a surface level one with an extremely low sample size of 30 rather than the 1,000 sample size you suggested in your example. So I can only dismiss that study since it is not sufficient enough to result in conclusive evidence of reliability.
  - corethree 3y ago
    You are dismissing the study not because you need 1000 samples. You are dismissing it because you're biased. 30 witnesses to a murder is highly reliable. Any judge or court who denies that is biased. 17 doctors who couldn't diagnose a simple issue for 10 years is a demonstration of total unreliability.
    - 3y ago