News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:No, machines can’t read better than humans by freehunter on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @11:31AM (#16169242)
>if bots can produce 'worthy set of opinions' we would be totally useless

False. That's actually my ideal vision of AI, a machine that produces a worthy set of opinions, which a human then chooses from and carries to implementation.

To me sitting here at my computer, every person here on HN may as well be an opinion-generating bot. The value I get from reading your programmatically-generated comment is the epiphany that leads me to a breakthrough on what I'm working on. Because you, as a comment-writing robot, aren't working on my project. All you're doing is evaluating my work and making suggestions as to where to go next.

A bot that's capable of coming up with its own opinions and then carrying them out is what may render us useless. A bot that tells a doctor what diagnosis to make and shows documentation to carry out treatment is valuable. A bot that makes the diagnosis then carries out the treatment itself with no human involvement is kinda scary.

Re:No, machines can’t read better than humans by rm_-rf_slash on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @11:52AM (#16169473)
Even scarier: a bot that can make the diagnosis and could carry out the treatment itself, but is required by law to seek approval from a human of equivalent expertise.

Let that happen, and eventually you get a situation where the human disagrees with a bot and the human does something different. The patient suffers or dies as a result of the bot’s decision being ignored.

That’s when we start to lose our autonomy.