3 ms·

I think the author is broadly correct: I think basically everyone can agree that we're in an AI investment bubble, and it is important and interesting to try to

by ketzo 3y ago

I think the author is broadly correct: I think basically everyone can agree that we're in an AI investment bubble, and it is important and interesting to try to evaluate what, if anything, will be left when it pops. But it strikes me as intellectually dishonest to assume in advance that everything that is currently being built will fail entirely. Doctorow is so relentlessly cynical about tech in general and Silicon Valley in particular that I find it really hard to read his stuff without rolling my eyes. Take this section: > In other words, an AI-supported radiologist should spend exactly the same amount of time considering your X-ray, and then see if the AI agrees with their judgment, and, if not, they should take a closer look. AI should make radiology more expensive, in order to make it more accurate. Implicit in this statement is the assumption that AI evaluation of X-rays will never get any better than it is right now. Why? Why would we assume that when the long arc of technology bends always towards things getting better/faster/cheaper?

cwmma 3y ago
He's talking about the value proposition RIGHT NOW which is for higher accuracy but also more expensive (because you'd need the same human in the loop + pay for the AI) and how that's different from how AI is being pitched right now which is save money and use less people. He's not assuming it won't get better, he's saying it's what it is right now.
- ska 3y ago
  We've been doing that sort of AI + radiologist since the mid 90s now, and it has made an incremental improvement; I expect it will continue to make incremental improvements. It's certainly cheaper than double reading everything (which has been show to improve some things, e.g. screening). Anyone expecting a radical change in that model in the short term is unfamilar with the SOTA in one or both domains. To put it another way, if we are looking for places to get a human out of the loop, radiology shouldn't be that high up anyone's list - but decision support is super useful sometimes.

by ketzo 3y ago

cwmma 3y ago

He's talking about the value proposition RIGHT NOW which is for higher accuracy but also more expensive (because you'd need the same human in the loop + pay for the AI) and how that's different from how AI is being pitched right now which is save money and use less people. He's not assuming it won't get better, he's saying it's what it is right now.

ska 3y ago
We've been doing that sort of AI + radiologist since the mid 90s now, and it has made an incremental improvement; I expect it will continue to make incremental improvements. It's certainly cheaper than double reading everything (which has been show to improve some things, e.g. screening). Anyone expecting a radical change in that model in the short term is unfamilar with the SOTA in one or both domains. To put it another way, if we are looking for places to get a human out of the loop, radiology shouldn't be that high up anyone's list - but decision support is super useful sometimes.