Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Supposedly there is some cool stuff going on in the medical field where the AI can identify abnormalities in scans better than doctors. But it's obviously never going to be able to think.
I work in biomed R&D, and specifically spent several years in Radiology.
Industry consensus is that CAD occasionally picks up anomalies that a radiologist would have missed, but the false positives it picks up are noisy enough to largely offset that benefit. It’s fine if used as a second pass to catch areas a human missed, but doesn’t actually perform “better than a doctor” in a vacuum, precisely because it’s not thinking for itself and e.g. cross referencing the imaging against clinical history.
I think that’s just pattern matching like facial recognition. It covers more imaging in less time and can help identify areas of concern. But that doesn’t need trillions of dollars.
Facial recognition is also AI, though.
That’s why I said originally generative ai and LLM
A deep learning model can tell biological sex from retina pictures, but not even the best eye doctors can. You feed it a pile of images labeled "these are from men" and "these are from women," and it figures out the differences and applies that knowledge to pictures it's never seen before. As far as I know, we still don't know what exactly it's picking up on - or if it's even something a human could distinguish - but for an AI it's not a problem.
I think the term "AI" has just been a bit stained by all the people conflating it with GenAI. Yes, GenAI is AI, but the term AI covers all kinds of systems, and GenAI is just one subcategory.