[cosignal]

Some people wonder why the use of ‘AI’ in pathology is not more effective, and this is part of the reason.

[rowanG077]

Hmm that is the opposite what I would have expected. Because there is so much variation an AI that has trained on an insane breadth of data should easily be able to outcompete a human on specialized tasks.

[lanstin]

Unless that training on exceptions isn't quite enough to convey the principles needed to reason about the domain.

I am sure for some problems it will amaze and for some it will not.

[eagerpace]

It seems like exactly the kind of thing AI will be better at than humans. If just needs to be trained on the variations instead of the textbook.

[bitnasty]

My thought is the exact opposite. AI can handle predictable situations fine, but the 20% of situations which are unpredictable require a general intelligence that can understand context that current AI technology (or possibly any AI technology) just doesn’t possess. There will always be situations that training doesn’t cover.

[loa_in_]

The other side is that AI can learn every last bit of information from all CT scans, operating room video recordings (and more) in the world with no rest or sleep, and with 100% diligence

[miah_]

But our current "AI" isn't Intelligent and it doesn't learn.

[loa_in_]

It does learn and it's great at mimicking. Don't ask it to perform the operation, ask it to fill in the gaps.

[mejutoco]

Sounds similar to symbolic reasoning (for example algebra) vs finding the most likely completion.