Using AI as a sounding board

[Ming the Merciless]

We could use AI to enhance our learning rather than as a substitute for it. Often we don't, it's easier not to.

AI does not help because the individual does not have to struggle to get to the “answer”. The learning is in the struggle, not in knowing the answer. The term for this lack of struggle is commonly called brain rot, and to a certain extent began with search engines.

 

[winjim]

Ps I worked almost all of my career in technology so I think I am aware of possibilities and limitations.

Are you aware of the possibilities and limitations of the blood tests you're asking it to interpret? Because if it is not "aware" of its own limitations then it can't be "aware" of the limitations in the information it's providing to you.

Several years back I had a urine test that returned an "out of normal" reading but it was requested by and checked by a GP registrar (qualified Dr training for GP specialty) and she was getting very concerned and wanting more tests. (I didn't want more tests) So I asked for a phone chat with a regular GP who looked at the results and "irrelevant given your activity, health, lack of other symptoms and we wouldn't blink twice at that level anyway". So if a qualified Dr training for GP specialty can't interpret properly do you think an AI would do better?

Junior doctors are naturally more inclined to want to act on what they see as an "abnormal" result. It takes more confidence and experience to leave something than it does to follow up on it. The same could be said for GPs overall. They're jacks of all trades and limited in the scope of what they're able to request. GP results are checked over more thoroughly in the lab and are more likely to have an interpretative comment added to them, than are results destined for a specialist.

 

[farfromtheland]

I take the position that AI, in a discrete system with accurate, comprehensive information, for example the game of Go/Baduk/weiqi, can show us insights through coping with exponentially vast possibilities...

Extending its use to medical matters is a huge step - garbage in, garbage out has always been the paradigm of computing.

I speculate that AI is capable of develoing something akin to consciousness. For this to be mindful/responsible would require the totality of living-aquired experience/communication to be available to it - virtually impossible.
To process this much information, even were it available, would in engineering parameters require so much physical infastructure as to cover the planet with crap. There's the rub.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I like the way it uses every piece of information

That information you provided about yourself is now part of its training data. It will be retained indefinitely and may be served up to other users. You have put your medical information in the public domain and lost control of it.

 

[katiewlx]

There is no "however".

You can keep going with ifs, buts, probablies and howevers and you'll still be wrong. Instead of me repeating that why don't you support your position with facts?

well I thought I stated it quite clearly the first time I replied, but if youve forgotten already, section 30 rta 1988, heres the direct link to it again https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/30

do you accept such an offence exists ?

To that end, here's a couple of questions:

What offence are you referring to? Cite it explicitly with act and section.

Again, can you cite the specific section of legislation that states this?

it would be general legislation that covers it, theres no specific legislation that covers this particular instance, but it would all be bundled under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) which gives the police their general powers to do stuff.

so they can stop you, question you, ask you to account for yourself, and also ask you to do some things voluntarily, like politely ask if as a cyclist theyd stopped was willing to supply a sample in this way, I believe the term they use for it would be a "consensual test".

Its not a legally enforced test, much like a drunk and disorderly charge they dont go round breathalysing pedestrians after theyve stopped them, theyre supposed to use their judgement, and so thats the same for cycling under the influence (section 30 of the RTA 1988 if youve forgotten again) and so the cyclist could politely refuse the request and should suffer no legal recourse for refusing, should doing the heavy lifting at that stage.

however if the cyclist mistakenly accepted as they werent legally obliged to and did provide a reading in excess of the drink driving limit, I think that would count against them as evidence even if we are getting into some very legally grey areas.

 

[wafter]

I refuse to go anywhere near AI on the grounds that it's untrustworthy, frequently inaccurate, environmentally destructive and ultimately potentially extremely dangerous.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

however if the cyclist mistakenly accepted as they werent legally obliged to and did provide a reading in excess of the drink driving limit, I think that would count against them as evidence even if we are getting into some very legally grey areas.

Not really as even for someone stopped in a motor vehicle; the roadside breath test is not admissible evidence in court. Only tests administered at a police station are admissible in court.

Even if admitted, it does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the cyclist was.

incapable of having proper control of the cycle

Just as it is not an offence to be drunk in public. You must be both drunk and disorderly. You would have to have evidence of the latter. If you are drunk and orderly, then no offence is being commited.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

well I thought I stated it quite clearly the first time I replied, but if youve forgotten already, section 30 rta 1988,

Thank you. You will see from that section that there is no such thing as a prescribed limit in relation to cycling. The prescribed limits you insist on referring to are not applicable.

The offence is cycling while unfit through drink or drugs, i.e. under the influence to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control.

it would be general legislation that covers it, theres no specific legislation that covers this particular instance

You cannot cite the legislation which gives police the power to require a specimen of breath because it doesn't exist.

If it did, then it would be contained in the Road Traffic Act, as are the powers for requiring specimens of breath, blood and urine from a driver.

You fundamentally do not understand what the applicable legislation states or allows.

 

[yello]

I too like AI, and I've only very recently started using it. What impresses me is speed, obviously, and breadth. I am aware it can be factually incorrect (or very wrong if you prefer) so I tend not to trust it per se but what it does do is expand my fields of exploration, if I can put it like that. It suggests stuff that I would otherwise never thought of. I can then explore those areas in more depth.

Besides, it does apologise if you point out that it's wrong. I do like that. Humility is a good trait.