• db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    The replacing part is the problem. Using a local system to help is fine, but it still requires humans who know what they’re doing and what they’re looking at.

    • EvilBit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      It doesn’t replace any individual directly. It improves one person’s capability to the extent that there may be fewer needed to do a job. And that’s not a bad thing in my opinion, especially because it can improve the quality of that person’s work at the same time.

      Edit to elaborate: I am opposed to replacing humans with AI in general. AI is a tool. But if that tool can empower someone to do more and better work, then I’m not opposed. Using stolen intellectual property to replace creatives with an inherently non-creative slop machine is greedy and evil. Using machine learning trained on medical data sets to let a radiologist more comprehensively and deeply review a frankly overwhelming amount of data to better save lives? I’m cool with that. But I also think that, in line with my stance that AI is a tool, there will likely be a well-trained human operating these tools for a long time before radiologists cease to exist.

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Sometimes, for example human + AI systems used to be better than either one in isolation, but chess AI improved so much that the human partner is actually not helping anymore

      • saimen@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 hours ago

        But chess is an isolated “system” with clear rules. Reality and especially medicine is so much more complicated.