the article is somewhat thin but it links the original nature publication https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-79838-6
This is what the AI-is-useful-actually argument obscures. There are parts of this technology that can do legitimately cool things! Machine learning identifying patterns in massive volumes of data that would otherwise be impractical to analyze is really cool and has a lot of utility. But once you start calling it “Medical AI” then people start acting like they can turn their human brains off. “AI” as a marketing term is not a tool that can help human experts focus their own analysis or enable otherwise-unfeasible kinds of statistical analysis. Will Smith didn’t get into gunfights with humanoid iMacs because they were identifying types of bread too effectively. The whole point is that it’s supposed to completely replace the role of a person in the relevant situations.
Doctor Parkinson declared, “I’m not surprised to see you here
You’ve got smokers cough from smoking, brewer’s droop from drinking beer
I don’t know how you came to get the Bette Davis knees
But worst of all young man, you’ve got industrial disease”
This kind of bullshit would classify you as Harry Potter if you drew a lightning bolt on your face.
probably Hary Pawter because otherwise they’ll have to admit how much copyrighted material they’ve stolen “fair use they’re employing”
