• andallthat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    24 minutes ago

    I’m not sure we, as a society, are ready to trust ML models to do things that might affect lives. This is true for self-driving cars and I expect it to be even more true for medicine. In particular, we can’t accept ML failures, even when they get to a point where they are statistically less likely than human errors.

    I don’t know if this is currently true or not, so please don’t shoot me for this specific example, but IF we were to have reliable stats that everything else being equal, self-driving cars cause less accidents than humans, a machine error will always be weird and alien and harder for us to justify than a human one.

    “He was drinking too much because his partner left him”, “she was suffering from a health condition and had an episode while driving”… we have the illusion that we understand humans and (to an extent) that this understanding helps us predict who we can trust not to drive us to our death or not to misdiagnose some STI and have our genitals wither. But machines? Even if they were 20% more reliable than humans, how would we know which ones we can trust?

  • azl@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    What’s the difference between one technology you don’t understand (AI engine-assisted ) and another you don’t understand (human-staffed radiology laboratory)?

    Regardless of whether you (as a patient hopelessly unskilled in diagnosis of any condition) trust the method, you probably have some level of faith in the provider who has selected it. And, while they most likely will choose what is most beneficial to them (cost of providing accurate diagnoses vs. cost of providing less accurate diagnoses), hopefully regulatory oversight and public influence will force them to use whichever is most effective, AI or not.

    • Chozo@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      What’s the difference between one technology you don’t understand (AI engine-assisted ) and another you don’t understand (human-staffed radiology laboratory)?

      The difference is that people think they understand AI. Even here in this thread, there are people confusing this for an LLM.

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Short answer, yes.

    Finding complex patterns in noisy data is an application that AI is actually well suited for. It still requires human follow-up. Anyway, human experts make mistakes in these areas as well. There is a good chance that a well designed AI could be more accurate.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Ok press the start button and slowly scan your penis, asshole and testicles. First apply included wax and pull forcefully and swiftly to remove hair.

  • nxn@biglemmowski.win
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Every passing day we delve deeper into this hole that is a cold technology driven world. Instead we really should be taking the time to share our outbreaks with friends and family.

  • Aisteru@lemmy.aisteru.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Honestly? Before the AI craze, I’d have said yes, because I believe AIs tailored to do one specific thing can outperform humans. Today? I’d rather not, as I could not let go of the thought that it might be somme shitty model quickly put together by the nephew of the CEO…

  • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Depends on the specificity and sensitivity of the test. Would have to be damn close to gold standards to justify. Company providing tech would need to be heavily regulated. Could be promising tech for sex workers if sensitivity was decent, but by time skin manifestations are present most of these are fairly far along.

  • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Honestly? I’ve leaked pics of those voluntarily, so curiously I’d be a-okay with this one.

  • pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Would I trust the accuracy of the output? No, but it might be a decent warning to get tested to make sure. Would I trust a company with pictures of my genitals attached to my identity? Certainly not an AI company.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Twitter is mostly verified dicks these days. That might be the better platform.

  • solrize@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I dunno, maybe the diagnosis is fine but the companies that run it are sure to save copies. I can just see databreaches now, “5 million stolen dick picks uploaded to dark web”. Complete with labelling of which ones are diseased though, so that’s a help.

    • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      If we could filter by length, girth, un/cut, ball size, hair amount, and (most importantly) diagnosis… I’m not saying I would put that tool together, but as a user

    • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      AI: “Your penis appears to be an avocado. This is normal, and you should not be concerned. However you have 3 testicles and this should be looked into.”

      You, a female: “uhhhhhh”

      • lemmyng@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        That’s LLM AI, but the type I’m talking about is the machine learning kind. I can envision a system that takes e.g. a sample’s test data and provides a summary, which is not far from what doctors do anyway. If you ever get a blood test’s results explained to you it’s “this value is high, which would be concerning except that this other value is not high, so you’re probably fine regarding X. However, I notice that this other value is low, and this can be an indicator of Y. I’m going to request a follow-up test regarding that.” Yes, I would trust an AI to give me that explanation, because those are very strict parameters to work with, and the input comes from a trusted source (lab results and medical training data) and not “Bob’s shrimping and hoola hoop dancing blog”.