273
The New York nurses replaced by AI: ‘It should concern every patient who cares about quality of care’
(www.theguardian.com)
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Sounds like the nurses who were laid off were doing a lot of “backend” stuff (talking to insurance, data entry, etc). If the AI was coming in and doing those jobs, freeing up the nurses to work more directly with patients, I could see a good argument for it. But no, they had to let the nurses go, which is just greedy and stupid as fuck given the nursing shortage.
I still wouldn't trust AI to do that stuff. That's how you end up killing and maiming patients.
"You're absolutely correct, that patient was allergic to penicillin."
Sounds more like the nurses were fired in retaliation for participating in a strike led by their union and the hospital is trying to make it seem like they did it because AI made their jobs irrelevant.
From what I read it looked like the nurses mainly worked in patient discharge, which isn't really a job that AI could realistically do. Half the time there isn't really a lot of information that would be accessible, a lot of the info would be entered after discharge when the attending provider is doing their notes.
As the nurses regularly have mentioned, even if they were kept on doing patient stuff, you still don't want AI making healthcare decisions or in charge of healthcare documents.
Yesss… we could hire more nurses with the time and money savings of A.I., but instead let's just fire them and make more money. Doesn't this kind of prove that the nursing shortage is manufactured? They had the option here to help improve the situation but deliberately chose profits every time
We need to keep people employed, firing all these people that do “back end” work is still taking jobs away. How far can it go?
Those two things are not mutually exclusive
I don't get your point. There was like 8 things in my comment, which ones were not mutually exclusive?
Well, you asked only one question
Ok, so one question equals two things being mutually exclusive? This has to be the laziest attempt to start an argument I've seen on Lemmy so far
You’ve got to be a troll…. This is completely obvious, but in the rare case you’re really not trolling:
Thing 1:
Thing 2:
Question:
Answer: (no), those two things are not mutually exclusive.