3 ms·

Yep this is something that only AI can solve. Same situation applies to education, sales, HR. Human powered bureaucracies and systems suck.

dayofthedaleks 1y ago
Any AI will most certainly reflect the biases of the bureaucracies responsible for their creation.
- KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
  Nah AI can easily be programmed to be much more patient and investigate edge cases and figure out personalized solutions thoroughly and provide bespoke service. This problem would be solved, though of course there are other issues with biases of the bureaucracies.
  - hluska 1y ago
    If you can do that easily, you will have no shortage of investors. But it’s not easy - getting the data alone is a huge problem.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
      I think OpenAI has plenty of investors... https://x.com/deedydas/status/1933370776264323164 https://x.com/deedydas/status/1933370776264323164
      - nradov 1y ago
        OpenAI doesn't lack investment capital. What they still don't have is a good source of high quality clinical data. And this isn't just a matter of buying access to deidentified patient charts from some large health system. Most clinical data quality is kind of crap so using it directly for model training produces garbage output. You need an extensive cleansing and normalization pipeline designed by human clinicians who understand the data at a deep level.
        KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
        Absolutely true, but is there a system that works perfectly that I can use now that has all that that isn't AI? In the absence of such a thing OpenAI is already quite good, some theoretical perfect shouldn't be trotted out as a counter if it doesn't actually exist.
        hluska 1y ago
        There is a massive difference between being able to discuss symptoms and actually being diagnosed. Diagnosing edge cases is precisely the kind of thing that a generative AI needs massive amounts of data on. Where is this magical data source that violates doctor patient confidentiality? And all the doctors just contribute to it and everything is fine? Come on…
      - hluska 1y ago
        That’s true but they have a massive shortage of clinical data. Doctor patient confidentiality is a thing.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
majormajor 1y ago
AI would be deployed to behave like the median doctor (at best - or maybe the lowest-common-denominator) to avoid blowing up costs with 99%-likely-to-turn-up-nothing hunts for super-rare conditions. Today you can try to cajole your human doctor into listening more, or ordering more tests, or considering things you heard online or from acquaintances. AI will be guided to take that into account less because a doctor being more sympathetic and bypassing "standard practice" is an expense caused by humanity that the machine can be trained to avoid. Today you can go across town and try your luck with another doctor. If it's all AI, you'll just repeat your story to the same basic model and get the same basic dismissal. The problem arose from trying to make people behave like machines in order to save money. Making a machine behave like a machine ain't gonna help. You need to shift the goal from "saving money" to "helping people." AI doesn't do that.
- KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
  The costs are so low you can easily inference a bit longer. The idea that a computer would be as lazy as a human is not even close to reality.
  - nemomarx 1y ago
    Not the cost of running the ai, the cost of potential tests and medical treatment if they do find something, I think?
    - KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
      Nah those make money not cost money (for providers).
- sfn42 1y ago
  You can do an obscene amount of inference for a fraction of the cost of an average doctor's appointment.
snitty 1y ago
>Yep this is something that only AI can solve. [citation needed]
tbrownaw 1y ago
> Yep this is something that only AI can solve. How? I'd expect them to already have standardized lists of the most useful next thing to investigate given what's already known, and a modern "AI" would actually be worse at that than some sort of solver engine with a database of costs/risks (for tests) and conditional probabilities. Maybe if they're still using (digitized versions of) paper flowcharts things could be improved, but the most powerful tech should be old-school stuff rather than modern "AI".
- KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
  No normal person would actually be able to use a specialized solver database, the woman in this story would already be dead before the guy figures out that such a thing exists and manage to make an account. https://x.com/deedydas/status/1933370776264323164 https://x.com/deedydas/status/1933370776264323164 LLMs already work fantastically with pretty good UX.
  - tbrownaw 1y ago
    Does "here are the most useful things to find out next" really need that complex of a user experience?

dayofthedaleks 1y ago

Any AI will most certainly reflect the biases of the bureaucracies responsible for their creation.

KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
Nah AI can easily be programmed to be much more patient and investigate edge cases and figure out personalized solutions thoroughly and provide bespoke service. This problem would be solved, though of course there are other issues with biases of the bureaucracies.
- hluska 1y ago
  If you can do that easily, you will have no shortage of investors. But it’s not easy - getting the data alone is a huge problem.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
    I think OpenAI has plenty of investors... https://x.com/deedydas/status/1933370776264323164 https://x.com/deedydas/status/1933370776264323164
    - nradov 1y ago
      OpenAI doesn't lack investment capital. What they still don't have is a good source of high quality clinical data. And this isn't just a matter of buying access to deidentified patient charts from some large health system. Most clinical data quality is kind of crap so using it directly for model training produces garbage output. You need an extensive cleansing and normalization pipeline designed by human clinicians who understand the data at a deep level.
      - KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
        Absolutely true, but is there a system that works perfectly that I can use now that has all that that isn't AI? In the absence of such a thing OpenAI is already quite good, some theoretical perfect shouldn't be trotted out as a counter if it doesn't actually exist.
        hluska 1y ago
        There is a massive difference between being able to discuss symptoms and actually being diagnosed. Diagnosing edge cases is precisely the kind of thing that a generative AI needs massive amounts of data on. Where is this magical data source that violates doctor patient confidentiality? And all the doctors just contribute to it and everything is fine? Come on…
    - hluska 1y ago
      That’s true but they have a massive shortage of clinical data. Doctor patient confidentiality is a thing.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

majormajor 1y ago

AI would be deployed to behave like the median doctor (at best - or maybe the lowest-common-denominator) to avoid blowing up costs with 99%-likely-to-turn-up-nothing hunts for super-rare conditions. Today you can try to cajole your human doctor into listening more, or ordering more tests, or considering things you heard online or from acquaintances. AI will be guided to take that into account less because a doctor being more sympathetic and bypassing "standard practice" is an expense caused by humanity that the machine can be trained to avoid. Today you can go across town and try your luck with another doctor. If it's all AI, you'll just repeat your story to the same basic model and get the same basic dismissal. The problem arose from trying to make people behave like machines in order to save money. Making a machine behave like a machine ain't gonna help. You need to shift the goal from "saving money" to "helping people." AI doesn't do that.

KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
The costs are so low you can easily inference a bit longer. The idea that a computer would be as lazy as a human is not even close to reality.
- nemomarx 1y ago
  Not the cost of running the ai, the cost of potential tests and medical treatment if they do find something, I think?
  - KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
    Nah those make money not cost money (for providers).
sfn42 1y ago
You can do an obscene amount of inference for a fraction of the cost of an average doctor's appointment.

snitty 1y ago

>Yep this is something that only AI can solve. [citation needed]

tbrownaw 1y ago

> Yep this is something that only AI can solve. How? I'd expect them to already have standardized lists of the most useful next thing to investigate given what's already known, and a modern "AI" would actually be worse at that than some sort of solver engine with a database of costs/risks (for tests) and conditional probabilities. Maybe if they're still using (digitized versions of) paper flowcharts things could be improved, but the most powerful tech should be old-school stuff rather than modern "AI".

KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
No normal person would actually be able to use a specialized solver database, the woman in this story would already be dead before the guy figures out that such a thing exists and manage to make an account. https://x.com/deedydas/status/1933370776264323164 https://x.com/deedydas/status/1933370776264323164 LLMs already work fantastically with pretty good UX.
- tbrownaw 1y ago
  Does "here are the most useful things to find out next" really need that complex of a user experience?