To be clear, I didn't mean to imply that AI was flawless or had no room for improvement, only that it has made real, tangible improvements. This is why it shouldn't be used as a replacement for humans, but as a tool for humans.
@joe If you were knowledgeable about medical AI & acting in good faith you'd have no trouble supplying sources to support your assertions & no reluctance to do so. It's a super basic part of serious discussions.
I provide multiple sources on the real dangers of using AI for medical purposes. All I asked was for you to do the same.
Instead you resort to evasion and an ad hominem attack.
If you have any serious, evidence-based thing to say, I'm happy to read it. Otherwise, have a good day.
To be clear, I didn't mean to imply that AI was flawless or had no room for improvement, only that it has made real, tangible improvements. This is why it shouldn't be used as a replacement for humans, but as a tool for humans.
@joe Please cite your sources. What improvements? How were these improvements tested, studied, and documented? Where were the results published?
I trust you're capable enough to do your own Google search.
@joe So you made them up. Good to know.
I see. You would rather feel correct than be correct. That's not a wise strategy.
The studies I allude to exist or don't independently from whether I spoon feed them to you.
Good to know.
@joe If you were knowledgeable about medical AI & acting in good faith you'd have no trouble supplying sources to support your assertions & no reluctance to do so. It's a super basic part of serious discussions.
I provide multiple sources on the real dangers of using AI for medical purposes. All I asked was for you to do the same.
Instead you resort to evasion and an ad hominem attack.
If you have any serious, evidence-based thing to say, I'm happy to read it. Otherwise, have a good day.