[taeric]

I mean... this is a perfectly legitimate use of computational power? What is the downside?

I suppose there is a risk they will downsize more. But this is like thinking cameras were bad because they reduced the number of security guards needed to secure an area. No?

[rscho]

Well, calling this AI seems like a long shot. What seems causal here is 'warn early', and indeed I'm sure it would work even better if you outputted a warning displayed full screen on the nurse's phone. It's quite possible you could have the same effect with trivial thresholds instead of a stat model. Still, I'd say it's indeed a good use of computers in general to produce targeted warnings.

[taeric]

Oh, fair. To an extent, at least. If they had said these were ML processed samples, would you balk as hard at it?

That is, I'm willing to chalk up use of "AI" as a descriptor being an editorial choice. Agreed that it isn't impressive just because it is AI, but it does still seem to be a good use of computational power.

[rscho]

Why 'balking hard'? Just saying that this is trivial use of statistics, but for once it's intelligent use. Still, if the false positive rate is too high, the effect won't last long.

[taeric]

Apologies, I thought you were the GP.

I took your tone to be a bit of push back on this being a good use of compute.