this post was submitted on 02 May 2026
601 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
84623 readers
4696 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not really.
It’s all about the rate of change: neoliberal globalization has brought down wages across industries, so fewer good jobs are left, and the not-so-good ones barely keep up the same standard of living.
From a neutral historical perspective, some serious pearl-clutching about jobs is not ill-founded.
As you say, people in the past facing these circumstances didn’t all commit suicide. Yet some did it explicitly, some did it indirectly with alcohol or other vices, others just lived less fulfilling lives than they otherwise would have. Nonetheless, we are very much encouraging deaths of despair en masse with our current societal outlook.
lower wages is the least of peoples worries if they cant even find a job anymore.
Society will adapt. It always has. People can make much more meaningful contributions to society than working at a desk at some software company. Let the AI do that. Humans are way too valuable for that. Meaningfulness of the work one does is one of the most important features of work satisfaction. Not everyone needs to be a doctor, nurse or teacher. Those are just the most common examples, but there are many more meaningful jobs where you are not simply an AI in human form slaving away at a desk job.
It is also simply not true that things like suicide and addiction rates were higher in the recent past. For example, look at drug overdose rates that have risen sharply in the past decades.
You’re sweeping a lot under the rug with that first sentence: Society will adapt. Yeah sure, barring global catastrophe, it will. Doesn’t mean people won’t die and suffer in the process.
I’m making no claims about good vs. bad jobs here; people can self-actualize however they like in my book. Nor was I making any specific point about epidemiology of deaths of despair in the recent past, but I think that trend serves to illustrate the overall point.
What am I sweeping under the rug? I’m not saying that change will be easy, but I’m talking about the end result. Too many people have made the wrong choices and got fooled by companies dangling big paychecks in front of their noses to work shitty office jobs.
You insinuated that in the past, people killed themselves more and had more addiction problems due to the fact that they couldn’t get the job they wanted. That is simply not true and just guessing at things you can’t back up. I’m showed you that the opposite is true: the data only shows that deaths of despair are getting worse than before we had all these bullshit jobs. Whether that is because of them or not cannot be said, but it shows that what you’re saying is not true.
So for the last few millennia, technology has automated away mostly manual labor and created room for knowledge work. The stuff that used to require a human brain. The "slave jobs" you're talking about.
AI has the opposite effect. Engineers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, nurses are going to be mostly worthless (surgeons will still be necessary for a while and nurses will still need to administer IVs and such, but largely anything that's not physically interacting with a patient will be automated away quicker). Anything creative is out the window too. AI can write 500 movie scripts in the time you can write one... And we were already trending towards slop with streaming.
The jobs that are safest for now are the ones where you don't need to use your brain but your body. Physical automatons are more expensive to buy and maintain than subscribing to some AI agent service and the workers they replace are cheaper.
Many of the jobs you mentioned, especially teachers, doctors and nurses cannot simply be replaced by AI because it doesn’t have the human aspect. A teacher needs to motivate people and be a mentor, understand kids’ reasoning and not display basic facts. We already had books for that.
AI is still very bad at solving the complex issues that doctors solve. It can’t do a physical examination and not everything is based on hard verifiable data, but also experience.
And nurses? I mean, you can think of that one for yourself.
Yes a lot of jobs are at risk. Not all are equally at risk though and “mostly worthless” is a looooong stretch.
Technically that's the parents' job as much as the teachers'. Just need to push for parents to shoulder more of the load. And who says we won't have a specialized motivator/mentor AI in a year or two?
But even a simple chatbot like ChatGPT is very reactive and can pretend very well to understand reasoning, just like a teacher. And every student can ask their chatbot for help at the same time. Personally, I'm from a small town in Estonia - I can tell you that when I went to school, I had multiple teachers who for sure would've been inferior to 2022 ChatGPT, let alone 2026 ChatGPT or Claude. We just didn't have better teachers available in this shithole. I've had an English teacher that didn't speak English (she was actually a history teacher and a poor one at that, they just didn't have a real English teacher to assign to us that year), an Estonian teacher that didn't really understand Estonian... IN ESTONIA. I have no idea where they dug her up from. And over the years, I think at least two IT teachers who barely knew how to use a computer. One of the German teachers and one of the History teachers also couldn't stop telling their personal stories. Learned nothing in either of those subjects that year. Luckily most of those horrible teachers only ended up teaching my class for one year at some point or another.
Actually the most valuable thing about school that technology can't replace is the physical building itself containing the students. Just having a bunch of other kids your age, who are also going through what you're going through. That's worth more than any teacher, as we learned during COVID when kids were deprived of it.
AI is still very bad at solving the complex issues that software engineers solve. Yet junior engineers are no longer finding jobs.
Yes, that's what I'm saying, there will be people whose job is nothing more than to do things like that, to provide the data. Then AI can guesstimate shit, and the doctor's job will be just to verify that the AI didn't fuck up. There's no need to pay a great doctor that can talk to the patient, do a physical, come up with a diagnosis and solutions if you can just pay a mediocre one that just takes liability for the AI if it fucks up. You can also pay far fewer doctors. Of course there will be radiology techs, physical examination givers (might literally become a low wage job of its own to fill out standardized tests). Etc. But you'll just have one or two specialized employees per task, rather than someone who needs a multi year degree and needs to know everything about the human body.
Good news then, because AI is literally 100% experience, 0% hard verifiable data. Chances are you're adding to some future AI's experience every time you fill something out on your EMR. Especially if it connects e.g radiology data to your notes.
I already said they'll still exist, but their job will be a physical interface between the AI system and the patients, more than anything. Maybe this'll take 10 years rather than 2, but it'll happen.
The ones least at risk are, like I said, low-paid physical jobs. Also any high-end executives. CEOs do nothing of real value, but they won't be replaced by AI because they're friends with the directors. Parliament/congress will still be around. Of course in my country they're talking about using AI to legislate as well. Or perhaps they've already started. We're fucking doomed, yay.
Safest bet in 2026 is actually trades, because that gets you a job where you still need knowledge and experience is worth something, but you also have to be present physically. Automating a plumber or electrician is harder than automating a doctor or an engineer, that's just how it is with modern AI. But with how many people are now unemployed, those jobs will also start paying a lot less than they used to.
Remember, for any job, it doesn't REALLY matter if the AI can do it well, only how well it can be sold to the government, or company stakeholders, etc. If an AI can do 20% of a person's job and the person costs 10x more than the AI to employ... That person can be laid off and other employees will have to pick up the remaining 80%, for no extra pay of course.
At the end of the day, as long as we still need jobs to live, we're all fucked. There's going to be no real middle class under capitalism anymore. There's a war on many fronts and our jobs going away or getting enshittified is just one.
To be clear I don't think anyone's losing their existing job tomorrow. Doctor, teacher, engineer, lawyer, whatever. I think getting into any of these careers is going to be very difficult soon, the salaries for new hires in particular, but also everyone in general, will drop hard, and AI will replace humans gradually, and perhaps not completely. But all of these jobs are going to be streamlined, with AI doing most of the thinking for you, and the human being there for liability only.
Sounds like a wonderful plan.
Pretend. Yes. Thank you. Teaching may be aided by AI. Just like books, blackboards, curriculums, videos, power points etc.
You told me I was praising AI. Then what do you call this? Guess each accusation is an admission in disguise…
Not the experience I was talking about. AI has read a lot of books. That’s it.
It's already what teachers are advocating for, since they have too much responsibility currently, and parents often don't have a big enough role in their kids lives.
Yes, and that's enough functionally. Actual understanding is not necessary if you can fake it to the point that people actually think AI is cognitive. Hell, did you read that article about Richard Dawkins now thinking Claude is conscious?
You do realize that videos and power points aren't interactive and can't generate their own lesson plans or grade tests, but AI can, right? You can see how that's different, right?
You were praising AI for causing people to be unemployed, essentially. I'm saying AI's a danger to our society because while it's still not conscious and in its current form never will be, it can displace large amounts of jobs because it's good enough. It will be used by capitalists to restructure society so we can all be in relative poverty.
LLMs have read a lot of books. There are other types of AI. Every day at work by interfacing with IT systems, you're providing training material for future AI solutions in your field. They might not be LLMs at all. The contracts to train them off your patient data may not exist yet. But they will. Probably it'll be Palantir sucking up to your government to get it. UK's NHS is already letting Palantir hoover up healthcare data.
But good thing we can get rid of many doctors and teachers eventually, like you said about us engineers. We'll need them for actually meaningful work in the trades and the hospitality industry.
Please stick to one thread. I’m not reading three different ones.
No it’s not LOL. Like you can pretend to be a very coginitvely smart and important person, but reality is different. People say a lot of things. Now we get to make memes about them.
Yes. I realize a lot of stuff. Maybe if you challenge yourself a bit more you could have figured that out yourself. I also realize books don’t have moving images like a video and that a laptop is not a blackboard. Thank you.
So in your line of thinking, if I say it’s a good thing that the oil crisis accelerated the transition to renewable energy, am I praising Trump and the Irani regime? If I tell you it’s a good thing Europe is improving their defence, am I praising Putin or Trump?
Aww so butthurt LOL. Grow the fuck up.
Make fewer comments in the same thread then.
Source on that please.
Never pretended to be either, I just said that if I'm not challenged with what pretty much amounts to puzzles of a sort, I get bored. I also said several times that this is because I have very severe ADHD not because I'm very "coginitively" (sic) smart or anything.
Well your previous comment sure sounded like you didn't know the difference, comparing AI to a blackboard. AI is closer to a teacher than to a textbook in interactivity. It regurgitates previously learned information, sure... But so do teachers. And while it can't really reason, it gets the job done better than a lot of teachers in small towns in particular, where there's really no competition for the jobs (rather, everyone's competing for the teachers).
The oil crisis has an upside because using oil is actually bad for the environment. What's the upside of millions of people losing their jobs? That they can enter other industries and drive wages down there? It's great for the capitalists, not for the rest of us.
I responded to this comment. You interjected yourself into that. Also, have some dignity and don't do a "no u". You're an adult for christs sake.
Sure here you are.
You kinda did by calling other people's work janitorial and factory work as if that was a bad thing.
That is not my lack of understanding, but yours. Both are tools for a teacher to use. How is this tool any different just because it appears to "talk back"? A powerpoint is more advanced than a book and a video more advanced than a still image. Teachers who dealt with the inventions at their time also thought it would change the job and the world completely. It didn't.
Yeah you're really going to have to back that one up. Especially since the data show otherwise
Read my initial comment that you responded to.... I'm not going to regurgitate shit because you can't comprehend or remember.
And I'm not going to respond to your other comment, since I already told you to use just one thread. Paste it here or I won't read it and it will just be a waste of your time.
And I responded to that reply in particular (i.e society adapting). You're now trying to merge threads that were originally about different facets of the same conversation. I have a tendency to branch a lot in my trains of thought, to the point where ideally I should be making several comments to reply to you, but I thought two might be a more manageable amount.
So neither one of us is going to prove anything. But I'm wondering what quality do you think a teacher has that an actually functional future teaching AI can't solve to at least 80% of the same capability for 10-20% of the cost, especially if you consider that the teacher can only attend to one student at a time, or address the whole class at once, but not attend to everyone's individual questions and such at the same time. If there's an average of about 25 students per class, 45 minutes a lesson, that's less than 2 minutes per student per lesson. Except most of that time usually goes towards teaching the whole class, so really most students get zero individual attention/mentorship. Which is an easy problem to solve by hiring more teachers... But to get even a single new teacher in most countries with decent social systems, you first have to finance a master's degree and then pay (in case of many European nations) union wages, which are actually pretty high compared to a lot of other jobs. And even then that person might decide not to stay in the role because teaching is very taxing work mentally, especially if you want to do it well. I know people who have worked in a school for a few years and then quit. Hell, I know a teacher who quit to work in straight up corporate tech support (and I do mean corporate: it was a B2B company, all the customers were companies), because that was... somehow less grueling. But make kids above a certain age be in classes of 50 or 70 instead of 20-30 and let AI do most of the work. You've suddenly eliminated close to half the teaching positions and it's easier to fill all the positions with people who are truly so passionate about it that being degraded by unruly kids every day doesn't burn them out.
How is a teacher any different just because it appears to "talk back"?
In the end both the teacher's brain and the LLM powering a future teacherbot, are neural networks. And if we are to believe that we live in a deterministic universe, free will as we know it may not even be real - in which case we have more in common with AI than we think, we just have vastly more stimuli and past experiences affecting our output and are of course significantly more complex.
Two studies from a nation already defunding its education (with individual states sabotaging their curricula too, since it's not nationally standardized), highlighting trends that were taking place before even ChatGPT came out and people actually started talking about AI. I'm talking about future agents that will wrap the LLM into something that can actually be proactive in a classroom setting, not just reactive.
... You replied to two of my replies. I replied to your replies. The point of the thread system here is to keep things organized so we know which comment was replying to which comment. Otherwise we'd just be on an oldschool bbs. But fine, I'll paste it here.
Which remarks exactly seemed derogatory to you?
Then why didn't you choose a more meaningful job instead of the interesting one? You could be doing more with patients in person. It's the nurses and orderlies who do most of the actual work in a hospital, from what I've seen the few times I've been in one.
Could it be that you found those jobs boring? Not challenging you in the right way? Why else did you not take one of those roles, given that they're, by some standards, even more meaningful than that of a doctor? An orderly in particular requires much less education too, you could've jumped straight to helping people after high school if that was actually the primary metric by which you chose your job. I suspect you want to think that, but in reality you took the job that's well paid and has the types of challenges that make you feel good when you solve them.
You: "Good, let 'em ruin themselves, we need the people in healthcare and education anyway."
Millions of people are losing their jobs worldwide, many more have studied for 3 years to get a degree they won't ever be able to use. You're saying that's a good thing. Why? Because in 5-10 years time, some companies might potentially go under for laying people off today and running out of the talent pool to hire from later? Those people need jobs now, and the healthcare system isn't going to need that many, especially since much of the western world can't afford its current healthcare systems right now.
Somehow a bunch of people losing their jobs is good because what, 2%, of them can grab vacant jobs in your industry? Hospitals employ a lot of people and there are vacancies like any other industry, but they're not going to magically conjure up all the money to hire a bunch of new people just because they'd be beneficial to have around. And I'm not even going into education, because the vast majority of people working in education are teachers and teachers need a degree, usually a master's in pedagogy. And like I said, that doesn't even guarantee you'll have a job for long now that governments are looking into using more AI to "make education more efficient" (cut costs).
And yet I'm the one "praising AI". I'm the one saying that capitalists will fight to replace every worker they can with AI, you're the one saying it's somehow a good thing. The positives don't even outweigh the negatives in the economic system we live in. Unless you're part of the ownership class. I don't know about you, but I'm not a billionaire so I'm not really benefiting here.
Pardon me, you just seemed ignorant of the whole issue of government efficiency being a thing taxpayers are usually looking for. Especially since, you know, taxes are actively being raised in some countries to be able to even afford the current spending. Or perhaps you handwaved it away because you understood it's going to be hard to argue your point unless in a perfect world without ever-increasing financial pressures.
E.g here in Estonia, in the last 5 years we've had the income tax raised, VAT raised twice, and the price of medical visits (ER visits and first visit per case of a specialty doctor, but not GP visits) went from 5 euros to 20 euros to try to get people to go to the doctor. Oh and in the same timeframe we got a nice new vehicle tax (not a bad thing in of itself) that comes with a new registration tax that also applies retroactively to old cars if ownership is transferred (can be a couple hundred to a few thousand euros to transfer ownership of a car worth 500 for an example). AND public transit costs money for tickets again. And we're STILL running a deficit, something Estonia didn't really do in the past.
As a result, different government departments are always trying to save money whereever possible. That includes things like having more students per teacher so that fewer teachers need to be paid. And this is Estonia, our government debt is just under 25% of GDP. If you take for an example Belgium, a nation with some of the highest taxes in the EU, that also brings in tons of income from diplomats and MEPs spending money there), their debt is over 100% of GDP. Finland is going to be over 100% too. There's no set debt to GDP ratio that's bad, but the higher the debt, the higher the interest payments. And to pay the interest, there need to be more taxes.
Doctors being replaced with AI doesn't mean they're going to be all replaced at once, nor are they going to be explicitly "replaced" by AI like software engineers. Rather, individual doctors are going to be expected to do more because "you now have AI helping you". Fewer young doctors will be hired because data will show that having X% fewer doctors of specialty Y per capita would result in only Z% fewer positive patient outcomes. Then in a few years, as AI tools get better, even fewer doctors will be needed. Etc. 2 years ago already we had an article here saying the national health insurance system found ways to save 21 million a year using "digital technologies and workforce reform". They're looking to either save another 100 million a year, or raise it via more taxation. Easiest way to do the former is to lay people off, which is what "workforce reform" really means.
If it seems to you that I ever implied that AI is going to replace doctors and teachers WITHOUT negatively affecting quality of care and education... Sorry, no, that's not what I meant. I meant the savings are going to be so significant that governments will do it despite the reduction in quality. It'll be deemed as "good enough".
Call me a pessimist or whatever, but one thing governments and corporations have in common is that they like cutting costs at the expense of the common folk. Corporations will sell AI solutions to governments, who will have to take them because of the aging populace and therefore shrinking tax base.
> And I responded to that reply in particular (i.e society adapting)
I don’t care why it happened. Point is you tried to make this my fault…
> So neither one of us is going to prove anything.
This is not a “both sides” thing. You made a claim that it is enough to pretend to know something to teach someone else something, which is an outrageous claim. Yet you tried to put the burden of proof on me and when that didn’t stick try to share the blame. Not going to work and I’m not very fond of your bad faith arguments.
> But I'm wondering what quality do you think a teacher has that an actually functional future teaching AI can't solve
We’re going around in circles. You already asked this and I already told you (hint: it’s the human element).
> How is a teacher any different just because it appears to "talk back"?
Uhm. I’m pretty sure a teacher knows what it’s saying and doesn’t appear to talk back but actually does.
> In the end both the teacher's brain and the LLM
That doesn’t answer my question at all…
> Two studies from a nation already defunding its education…
Trying to pick apart the data that backs up what I said is not the same as backing up your own claim. Try a little harder.
> The point of the thread system here…
Yeah in comments between different users, not the same one.
> Which remarks exactly seemed derogatory to you?
Read my previous comment. And you didn’t answer how that made me into having a god complex…
> Then why didn't you choose a more meaningful job instead of the interesting one?
I am doing the most meaningful one… there is not much difference within health care. There is however a large difference with corporate jobs, like I already mentioned in my first comment.
> Somehow a bunch of people losing their jobs is good because what, 2%, of them can grab vacant jobs in your industry?
Not good for those people in the short term obviously, but better for the world in the long run. And health care is just one example. There are many other sectors that could use human capital instead of something an AI could replace.
Yes economic hardship is coming in the near future, especially when the AI bubble bursts. But yes we will find a way to adapt in the long run, as we always have.
So how would I fund all the health care and other jobs? Large corporations are already hardly contributing anything, and if they’re not even providing jobs, the argument that they’re good for the economy is completely gone. That opens up a path to simply tax the hell out of these corps. And I know that it is not going to be as easy, but I also do not need to make an entire economic balance sheet for one comment on Lemmy. That is ridiculous.
> And yet I'm the one "praising AI".
Indeed you are. I told you AI’s limitations, that they can’t be a person, can’t reason, can only fake having knowledge, can only fake interaction and understanding, only read a lot of books (or saw a lot of scans or EKGs or lab results, I know other AI’s other than LLMs exist doofus, I work with them on a daily basis) but that it doesn’t equal human experience that also incorporates a lot of stuff that you won’t learn in any book, especially in healthcare.
You on the other hand seem to think an AI is already doing a better job than teachers without anything to back it up. So yeah, praising AI beyond its capabilities.
> you just seemed ignorant of the whole issue of government efficiency being a thing taxpayers are usually looking for
Just because I don’t over explain everything like you do doesn’t mean I’m ignorant. This is just more of your own god complex showing, your own arrogance and ignorance like I already told you a bunch of times. And you wonder why I’m annoyed with you? This is not how you have a constructive discussion. So either keep your arrogance in check or you can discuss with yourself.
You also seem to have forgotten a teeny tiny problem here: an influx of patients because of aging baby boomers. The baby boom is about to turn into a health care boom. The first baby boomers are already nearing 80 years old. They will not stop presenting themselves to hospitals or care facilities because you or society doesn’t want to spend the money on it. This definitely means we will need more people in the short to medium term. Especially the people that you consider “janitors” or “factory workers”.
> Doctors being replaced with AI doesn't mean…
You also don’t need to mansplain this to me. This is a daily topic of discussion at the hospital where I work.
Why is that even something we need to assign blame for? I replied to your reply, because it was on a different subject. It was supposed to be a different discussion than the healthcare one, until you decided to merge them. You want one discussion, I wanted two different ones. Big deal, let's move on.
This is something that we're only going to be finding out in the future. But like I said, I don't expect AI to be as good as actually good teachers. I do expect it to be cheaper though. And good teachers aren't ubiquitous. There's currently no data either way, but you're saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's probably not and government's gonna want to save money.
Seen plenty of teachers in my time in school who had very little human element in their lessons. Plus like I said, they don't actually have time for their students.
And where does a teacher's knowledge come from? If the answer is books and studies, I have excellent news, LLMs have been trained on more of those than a human could ever learn.
What was the point of your data though? It's irrelevant, it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that LLMs are cheaper than humans. I'm also saying that the quality of teaching will soon be "good enough". Who decides what's good enough? Bureaucrats in the government. It's subjective. There's no exact standard.
ORRRR you can use different comment chains to reply about different subjects. There's no rule of one comment per user lol
You just said you had a problem with me saying I dislike menial work. I never insulted you. I never insulted the people you work with, who I'm pretty sure work much harder than you or me. I said I'm incapable of doing that type of work because it'd bore me to death.
Yes, but unfortunately only physical jobs are now safe from AI. 5 years ago we didn't imagine software engineers being replaced by AI anytime soon. Now we don't imagine subpar software engineers having jobs in a few years.
And they'll also be under fire from AI.
But what matters are the results and the cost, not the actual understanding. If an AI has a similar success rate in diagnosis and treatment compared to a doctor, but is significantly cheaper and can be scaled up and down to see more or fewer patients depending on need.
AI doesn't understand art either, yet artists are being replaced. AI doesn't understand code either, yet software engineers aren't being hired anymore... And we used to think we'd be the last to be replaced, since we're the ones actually creating it. That was our hubris. You're now where I was a few years ago with yours.
And it's being trained off EVERY scan and EKG in the future. You only see those of your patients and maybe a few other study cases. AI will learn from millions. Which is the reason it'll be able to mostly perform diagnostics without even understanding what it's doing.
Yet you implied all they have is book knowledge. You should then know there are far more accurate types of AI than LLMs, and we're only getting better at creating them.
You just admitted that you realize they don't just learn from books. Once the deals are there (and the big AI companies are already working with governments so it won't be long), they'll literally be trained on your experience as you document everything in your EMR software. So why pretend it's only ever going to be stuff learned "in any book"?
Well you're simply handwaving important issues away, so I was hoping you were ignorant, but turns out you're just arguing in bad faith.
A daily discussion and yet you think it'll be impossible for it to happen? Alrighty then.
The god complex I mentioned is your idea that you're irreplaceable. You're not. I'm not. None of us are. You and I are easier to replace than a construction worker, plumber or electrician. We're not coming out of this without abolishing private property. Taxation won't save anything, because corporations can't have significant revenue taxes for fairly obvious reasons and profit taxes are too easy to skirt. VAT works the best, but good luck selling the general population on increasing that, it's too visible in how it affects prices.
What I said it is that the AI doesn’t understand things, doesn’t get what someone is saying. AI in its current form doesn’t understand a person. That is fact. I literally never said that it would not be possible in the future.
The claim you made was that AI is better than a portion of teachers right now and that is what I denied. How is it not a big deal when it turns out you’re simply wrong? How about we move on after you agree you were wrong?
That is your biased interpretation. They were still humans and not computers.
Can’t you figure that out for yourself? I don’t really get the feeling you really like to challenge yourself mentally, as this is an easy question to answer with a little brain work.
But fine: in the beginning their formal training as a teacher, as taught by other, more experienced teacher. And after a few years on the job their own experience as well. Reducing it to just books is a straw man argument that even you know is utter bullshit.
It has everything to do with what you were saying, since you claimed that the AI was already doing better than the bottom part of teachers. So why are we not seeing an improvement in education results from the time they were implemented? Strange how things are irrelevant when they disprove your claim. You’re arguing in bad faith again.
Now that is irrelevant because we were discussing that you though AI was doing better than teachers. Now you want to bring money into this? And I thought I couldn’t say you were praising AI? Then why do you keep doing it?
Nonsense. We have broadly discussed teaching and there are many other jobs that require physical communication with another human.
But it will still not understand. Which is what is necessary to make the translation from data to patients.
AI can read a gazillion scans and put out a result with a confidence % or whatever. But in the end the decision needs to be made what is best for this individual patient. It only knows books, guidelines and scans. That is not the hard part of medicine. It’s weighing all the options and information and deciding for each patient what needs to be done, taking into account a lot of factors that necessitate human interaction. This is where big data fails and the human element comes in. This is also what you fail to understand.
You also need a human to explain things to a patient. We are experiencing more and more patients every day who put their health complaints through ChatGPT and don’t understand an iota of what it’s saying and draw their own conclusions that cannot be drawn. You cannot bombard a patient with data and information like ChatGPT. You’re way too stuck in your own
LOL nice “no u” coming from mister cognitive challenge
Yes that would be pretty foolish of me to think. Good thing I never said that. More straw manning.
Never said that, nor hold this idea. Look above why a computer can never replace a person, since as I already mentioned a 1000 times, it lacks the human aspect. This is not something that is specific to me, so I don’t know why you’re making this about me specifically.
And that is impossible to change?
Edit: if all you’ve got is straw man arguments we’re done here.
When did I ever say AI would be better than humans in general? I said it's better than some humans and significantly cheaper than humans. You say I'm using strawmans, yet you're not arguing the points I'm actually making, only the ones you want me to be making so you could win. Bye bye, I'm out.
When did I say you said humans in general?