This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Yeah, I'd much rather have random humans I don't know anything about making those "moral" decisions.
If you're already answered, "No," you may skip to the end.
So the purpose of this article is to convince people of a particular answer, not to actually evaluate the arguments pro and con.
What are you going to train it off of since basic algorithms aren't sufficient? Past committee decisions? If that's the case you're hard coding whatever human bias you're supposedly trying to eliminate. A useless exercise.
A slightly better metric to train it on would be chances of survival/years of life saved thanks to the transplant. However those also suffer from human bias due to the past decisions that influenced who got a transpant and thus what data we were able to gather.
And we do that with basic algorithms informed by research. But then the score gets tied and we have to decide who has the greatest chance of following though on their regimen based on things like past history and means to aquire the medication/go to the appointments/follow a diet/not drink. An AI model will optimize that based on wild demographic data that is correlative without being causative and end up just being a black box racist in a way that a committee that has to clarify it's thinking to other members couldn't, you watch.
That's not what the article is about. I think putting some more objectivety into the decisions you listed for example benefits the majority. Human factors will lean toward minority factions consisting of people of wealth, power, similar race, how "nice" they might be or how many vocal advocates they might have. This paper just states that current AIs aren't very good at what we would call moral judgment.
It seems like algorithms would be the most objective way to do this, but I could see AI contributing by maybe looking for more complicated outcome trends. Ie. Hey, it looks like people with this gene mutation with chronically uncontrolled hypertension tend to live less than 5years after cardiac transplant - consider weighing your existing algorithm by 0.5%
Tho those complicated outcome trends can have issues with things like minorities having worse health outcomes due to a history of oppression and poorer access to Healthcare. Will definitely need humans overseeing it cause health data can be misleading looking purely at numbers
I agree with you but also
It seems like algorithms would be the most objective way to do this
Algo is just another tool corpos and owners use to abuse. They are not independent, they represent interest of their owners and they oppress pedon class.
Yep, basically. How it's gonna go: instead of basing the transplant triage on morals, priority and the respect of human life as being priceless and equal, the AI will base it on your occupation within society, age, sex and how much money you make for the rich overlords if you recover. Fuck that noise.
Creatinin in urine was used as a measure of kidney function for literal decades despite African Americans having lower levels despite worse kidneys by other factors. Creatinine level is/was a primary determinant of transplant eligibility. Only a few years ago some hospitals have started to use inulin which is a more race and gender neutral measurement of kidney function.
No algorithm matters if the input isn't comprehensive enough and cost effective biological testing is not.
Well yes. Garbage in garbage out of course.
That's my point, this is real world data, its all garbage, and no amount of LLM rehashing fixes that.
Everyone likes to think that AI is objective, but it is not. It is biased by its training which includes a lot of human bias.
The death panels Republican fascists claim Democrats were doing are now here, and it's being done by Republicans.
I hate this planet
"Treatment request rejected, insufficient TC level"
A Voyager reference out in the wild! LMAO
Had to be done. It's just too damn close not to.
Yeah. It’s much more cozy when a human being is the one that tells you you don’t get to live anymore.
Human beings have a soul you can appeal to?
Not every single one, but enough.
I was being snarky
Yes. I know you were.
So, is it that you do think a board of real human people is better, then?
No, I think whenever it’s up to someone else, without my permission, it’s always bad.
Edit: as in I’d rather not have someone else choose when I die. That’s between me & physics or god or the universe or something that isn’t some other person.
I don't know if you know this, but there are a limited number of kidneys to transplant. I honestly don't know what else to say.
I wasn’t talking about the kidneys that time, more generally about others deciding who dies
I still remember "death panels" from the Obama era.
Now it's ai.
Whatever.
everything republicans complained about can be done under Trump twice as bad, twice as evil and they will be 'happy' and sing his praises
I don't mind AI. It is simply a reflection of whoever is in charge of it. Unfortunately, we have monsters who direct humans and AI alike to commit atrocities.
We need to get rid of the demons, else humanity as a whole will continue to suffer.
Say what you will about Will Smith, but his movie iRobot made a good point about this 17 years ago.
(damn I'm old)
The kidney would still be transplanted at the end, be the decision made by human or AI, no?
I would rather have AI deciding it than bank account balances.
What do you think the AI would be trained on?
See also: UnitedHealthCare
What's with the Hewlett Packard Enterprises badging at the top?
I kinda don't want anyone other than a doctor determining it, tbh. Fuck the human bean counters just as much as the AI ones.
Hopefully we can just start growing organs instead of having to even make such a grim decision and everyone can get new livers. Even if they don't need them.
I don't really know how it's better a human denying you a kidney rather than a AI.
It's not like it's something that makes more or less kidneys available for transplant anyway.
Terrible example.
It would have been better to make an example out of some other treatment that does not depend on finite recourses but only in money. Still, a human is now rejecting your needed treatments without the need of an AI, but at least it would make some sense.
In the end, as always, people who has chosen the AI as the "enemy" have not understand anything about the current state of society and how things work. Another example of how picking the wrong fights is a path to failure.
Responsibility. We’ve yet to decide as a society how we want to handle who is held responsible when the AI messes up and people get hurt.
You’ll start to see AI being used as a defense of plausible deniability as people continue to shirk their responsibilities. Instead of dealing with the tough questions, we’ll lean more and more on these systems to make it feel like it’s outside our control so there’s less guilt. And under the current system, it’ll most certainly be weaponized by some groups to indirectly hurt others.
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”
