Yes, Bud, but here is what you are not saying. Medical mistakes are the third or fourth leading cause of death in America. I took my wife to a hospital with intense back pain. They did a CT scan. The doctor told me she had a sprained muscle. They never looked at the CT, or they were totally incompetent. When I got the CT disk and put it on my computer, I could tell that Stevy wonder could have seen those fractures in L2 and L4.

After several trips to the hospital and exams by an ENT doctor, she told me I did not have cancer. I came home and put a 7mm camera down my throat and did the exam myself. What I saw indicated cancer. I went back to the hospital the next day and demanded a biopsy. Two days later, it came back positive for carcinoma. The rest is history.
I could go on, but you know exactly what I am talking about.
No one has ever said AI was 100% or even 80% accurate. It is just like surgeons learning new techniques. They kill some people until they figure out how to get it right

Here is my question for you. How many people has your system killed? How many people has AI killed? At least AI states up front in plain language that it does not always have the correct answers. How many times does the medical system in the United States tell a patient that?

I agree with you 100% that AI returns dangerously incorrect medical information.

I am not proselytizing for some god of AI. It is a technology that has received more money spent this year than most medical research projects. It is already better at reading radology for cancer the the best doctors. Do I want to take the human out of the loop now? Hell no. Do I trust AI emphatically? Hell no. Is it a useful tool in the hands of someone who actually knows how to use it? In my less-than-humble opinion, yes.

Look, Bud, I am not trying to bust your chops, but I truly believe that it could be possible that you do not fully understand the scope of AI, what it can do, and what it can not do. We are all in that boat to a greater or lesser degree. This is a new technology in its infancy. It is not easy to use in a meaningful way. Sure, if all someone wants is entertainment, AI is pretty easy. Medical information...that is another issue. When I ask medical questions of any AI, I demand references from peer-reviewed medical journals like The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet. Then I go read those reviews. In these uses, AI is not a toy; it is a highly knowledgeable research partner. When I ask questions about quantum physics, I already have some understanding of the subject and the mathematical equations involved. There are many things I have spent hours exploring the limits of this technology, only to find that it is unsuitable for the task. Serious electronic troubleshooting, for example. Every tool I own returns unreliable information to some degree.

Some people find AI a wonderful tool for music. Some find it a piece of crap.
Most complain that it is unfair and unethical because they fear for their livelihood and that of others.

AI is frightening and dangerous, but the potential is great that we will rush headlong into the future, danger be damned. It is hugely driven by the profit motive. It is an inflection point of great possible importance.

Like it or not, support it or not, at this point, it will either work or bankrupt huge sections of the world economy.
This is not about you and me. This is untold billions of dollars that are being spent, and at the end of the day, national security.

By the way, I never said it before, but your dog is too cool for words.

Cheers,

Billy

“Amazing! I’ll be working with Jaco Pastorius, Charlie Parker, Art Tatum, and Buddy Rich, and you’re telling me it’s not that great of a gig?
“Well…” Saint Peter, hesitated, “God’s got this girlfriend who thinks she can sing…”