Comment on Chatbots Make Terrible Doctors, New Study Finds

irate944@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• rudyharrelson@lemmy.radio ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  People always say this on stories about “obvious” findings, but it’s important to have verifiable studies to cite in arguments for policy, law, etc. It’s kinda sad that it’s needed, but formal investigations are a big step up from just saying, “I’m pretty sure this technology is bullshit.”

  source

  • irate944@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Yeah you’re right, I was just making a joke.

    But it does create some silly situations like you said

    source

    • rudyharrelson@lemmy.radio ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I figured you were just being funny, but I’m feeling talkative today, lol

      source

      • IratePirate@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        A critical, yet respectful and understanding exchange between two individuals on the interwebz? Boy, maybe not all is lost…

        source
  • Knot@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I get that this thread started from a joke, but I think it’s also important to note that no matter how obvious some things may seem to some people, the exact opposite will seem obvious to many others. Without evidence, like the study, both groups are really just stating their opinions

    It’s also why the formal investigations are required. And whenever policies and laws are made based on verifiable studies rather than people’s hunches, it’s not sad, it’s a good thing!

    source
  • Telorand@reddthat.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    The thing that frustrates me about these studies is that they all continue to come to the same conclusions. AI has already been studied in mental health settings, and it’s always performed horribly (except for very specific uses with professional oversight and intervention).

    I agree that the studies are necessary to inform policy, but at what point are lawmakers going to actually lay down the law and say, “AI clearly doesn’t belong here until you can prove otherwise”? It feels like they’re hemming and hawwing in the vain hope that it will live up to the hype.

    source
  • BillyClark@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    it’s important to have verifiable studies to cite in arguments for policy, law, etc.

    It’s also important to have for its own merit. Sometimes, people have strong intuitions about “obvious” things, and they’re completely wrong. Without science studying things, it’s “obvious” that the sun goes around the Earth, for example.

    I don’t need a formal study to tell me that drinking 12 cans of soda a day is bad for my health.

    Without those studies, you cannot know whether it’s bad for your health. You can assume it’s bad for your health. You can believe it’s bad for your health. But you cannot know. These aren’t bad assumptions or harmful beliefs, by the way. But the thing is, you simply cannot know without testing.

    source

    • Slashme@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Or how bad something is. “I don’t need a scientific study to tell me that looking at my phone before bed will make me sleep badly”, but the studies actually show that the effect is statistically robust but small.

      In the same way, studies like this can make the distinction between different levels of advice and warning.

      source

      • SuspciousCarrot78@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I remember discussing / doing critical appraisal of this. Turns out it was less about the phone and more about the emotional dysregulation / emotional arousal causing delay in sleep onset.

        So yes, agree, we need studies, and we need to know how to read them and think over them together.

        source
  • eager_eagle@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Also, it’s useful to know how or why something happens. I can make a useless chatbot that is “right” most times if it only tells people to seek medical help.

    source