How often do you think use of AI improves medical outcomes vs makes them worse? It's always super-effective in the advertising but when used in real life it seems to be below 50%. So we're boiling the oceans to make medical outcomes worse.

To answer your question, AI would need to demonstrate improved medical outcomes at least 50% of the time (in actual use) for me to even consider looking at it being useful.

[–] AtmosphericRiversCuomo@hexbear.net 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

50% is the number yeah? I wish yall took "no investigation no right to speak" more seriously.

[–] ferristriangle@hexbear.net 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They've provided a source, indicating that they have done investigation into the issue.

The quote isn't "If you don't do the specific investigation that I want you to do and come to the same conclusion that I have, then no right to speak."

If you believe their investigation led them to an erroneous position, it is now incumbent on you to make that case and provide your supporting evidence.

[–] Cysioland@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Y'all are suffering because of the lack of downvotes, so you need to actually dunk on someone instead of downvoting and moving on

[–] Assian_Candor@hexbear.net 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We need to make a chat gpt powered dunking bot

[–] Cysioland@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 days ago

ChatGPT is censored, this calls for some more advanced LLMing, perhaps even a finetune based on the Hexbear comment section argument corpus. It's only ethical if we do it for the purpose of dunking on chuds/libs