Formula E team fires its AI-generated female motorsports reporter, after backlash: “What a slap in the face for human women that you’d rather make one up than work with us.”::px-captcha
Formula E team fires its AI-generated female motorsports reporter, after backlash: “What a slap in the face for human women that you’d rather make one up than work with us.”::px-captcha
I feel like AI haters really struggle to grasp the concept of an actually competent AI that can do something better than a human would. The counter-arguments always seem to come from the assumption that this will never be the case but that’s changing the subject.
If there is an AI doctor that has a proven track record of being better at diagnosing illesses than any human doctor then I’ll rather consult the AI. I’m fully aware how “unfair” it is for the human doctor but I don’t want to have to deal with misdiagnosis just because I wanted to show my support for human doctors and knowingly going for the inferior option.
Because we haven’t seen an AI yet that can do what a human can do but better.
The flip side is that the company that owns the doctor AI doesn’t want you to use it because their 95% successful diagnosis means every 1 in 20 cases they have the opportunity to get sued.
Well presumably they would be using it to replace a doctor with even worse success rate so I’m not sure why wouldn’t they want me to use that instead.
Legislation is always 2+ decades behind technology. Legal protections are in place for doctors making wrong decisions with the information they have on hand as long as it’s to the best of their ability. The same protection doesn’t extend to someone’s brand new AI doctor.
Why do you think you know what’s happening in a hypothetical doctor’s mind?