• MangoCats@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    The thing about medical is that it’s so big - no one expert can cover even a small fraction of “medical”. So, unless you have a whole team of specialists there on-hand, you just might benefit from having some “automated experts” available when you need the pattern recognition they can offer.

    • gothic_lemons@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Except the medical expert in field A can’t be the human in the loop to verify the AI medical slopPut for field B is correct, cuz the medical expert isn’t an expert in field B. A team of human specialists will be better in the long run.

      • MangoCats@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        A team of human specialists will be better in the long run.

        For the 0.1% of the population who can afford to assemble a team of human specialists in a timely fashion when they need them…

        For the rest of us, cyborg M.D.s with brain augmentation (they called this a PubMed search in the 1990s, it’s faster and more effective today) are better than the un-augmented M.D.s we can afford.

    • minfapper@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      The thing about software is that it’s so big - no one expert can cover even a small fraction of “software”. If you’re a kernel driver developer, you might benefit from having some “automated experts” available in CSS/HTML for the pattern recognition they can offer.

      I find it amusing how most experts think AI is great for every field except theirs.