I think you are assuming the 90% accuracy is aleatory. If it simply makes errors on all people named Pedro, that wouldn't be acceptable would it?
-
-
-
I would heartily recommend it to everyone not named Pedro.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Assuming medical diagnosis and remedy have probabilities associated with them, would you still make the same decision?
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Which one will take my insurance?
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
What about the AI whose explanation leads to a better understanding of the disease and ultimately to the development of a drug which ameliorates it? I'd pick that over the AI that can correctly, but inexplicably, diagnosis the incurable disease.
-
This false dichotomy between prediction and explanation really bugs me. Prediction and explanation serve very different purposes.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Ultimately these decisions come down to body count; kudos to you for recognizing that...
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
I'd clearly pick the former. A non-explained diagnostic can't be built upon. It's a black box. I can't, for example, hand it over to a different AI that checks for flaws in the diagnostic proof.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Just my opinion.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
On an individual level, it really doesn't matter too much if your doctor tells you your chance of survival is 80% or 90%. Statistics are not too useful in determining the outcome of a single event. So, I would prefer a doctor who can tell me how I can improve my chances.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.