Is anybody familiar with this type of research? I know that nothing can replace human judgement, but imagine... if you had supersmart programs preview your slides for you, wouldn't it make your life at least a bit easier?
Well, "always" is a long time. Someday AI will have advanced to the point where it can pass the Turing Test (i.e., if you have a conversation with it, it will be indistinguishable from another human). We won't see this in our lifetimes, but it'll happen eventually. A century from now (or two, whatever...) the technology will have progressed to where the machine makes fewer errors than even the most expert human. And then there will be no substitute for the computer eye and the computer judgement, since the computer won't be tired, bored, distracted, etc.Brian Pavlovitz said:I doubt a machine will ever be able to make a definitive diagnosis--especially an abnormal one. There is just no substitute for the human eye or human judgement. Even the coulter counters in hematology can only flag something as "Abnormal WBC (or PLT or RBC) Population". In the end, I think humans will always have to say just how "abnormal" something really is.
I am pretty sure that most of the politicians are already robots. You can pretty much predict what they are going to say before they say it just by looking to see which side of the aisle that sit on. However, John Kerry does flip flop a lot...maybe his circuitry is faulty or maybe he needs to reboot...yaah said:.
Who knows what will happen. Perhaps one day pathologists will be obsolete, but I would imagine by that time nearly every job will be obsolete, and then I don't know what the politicians are going to fight about. We can be fairly certain that politicians will never be replaced by robots.