this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2026
609 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

88390 readers
3543 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

if it wasn't maliciously designed it's absurdly negligent. both of which are reason enough to not use AI at all.

wouldn't it make more sense to streamline the existing processes first before creating a traffic jam of "potential" cures? where at least the models could be trained on existing cutting edge medical research instead of flying blind and developing novel treatments and cures.

the more I think about it the more is seems plausible that the actions AI implementation takes is malicious negligence. incompetence derived from a malicious intent to do harm on someone or something.

is this the disruption AI execs were talking about?