[belly_joe]

I would say generally speaking that people who assume AI will replace somebody else's job believe that these jobs are merely mechanical and there is no high-level reasoning involved that would basically require AGI (when that comes about nobody is safe). So the model of the AI radiologist assumes the only job of a radiologist is to classify images, which is pretty vulnerable to near-future disruption.

I imagine, given the training involved, the job involves more than just looking at pictures? This is what I would like to see explained.

The analogy would be the "95% of code is written by AI" stat that gets trotted out, replacing code with image evaluation. Yes AI will write the code but someone has to tell the AI what to write which is the tricky part.

[TuringNYC]

>> jobs are merely mechanical and there is no high-level reasoning involved

This is a very binary way of thinking about it. More usual is that components of many professions are mechanical and can be automated, while other components are not mechanical and thus harder to automate. Regardless, if some % of the mechanical work goes away, it is unlikely that human workers just work less. Instead, they will work just as much and the overall demand for workers is reduced by %

[ido]

Between 1985 and 2025 we went from programming in 8086 assembly language to high level languages like python, typescript and go. These automate a lot of the drudgery of programming in asm, so why has the overall demand for programmers not diminish (in fact it increased massively)?

[tbrownaw]

We already have AI taxis (in specific limited areas, but still). Driving isn't something I'd usually call "merely mechanical".

[mbrameld]

Can you describe a driving scenario where the correct action couldn't be determined "mechanically"? Are you thinking of something like the trolley problem?

[tintor]

Driving (in US) is considered unskilled labor.

[cess11]

That is such a contrived phenomenon, it has taken decades of lobbying and destruction of political accountability to create the conditions where a person considered sane would touch that idea instead of immediately skipping over to driverless trains.

Incredibly wasteful gimmick, I don't get why the usians are still struggling away at it now that the chinese seem to have already done it.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I don't know where you've gotten the idea that cars are something you can "skip over" on the way to trains. Public transit is great, and the US should do it better, but it doesn't obsolete every other form of transit. The vast majority of people in every country who can afford access to cars use them regularly.

[const_cast]

> The vast majority of people in every country who can afford access to cars use them regularly.

Well... that's just not true.

[cess11]

Why are you so sure about that?

[seesthruya]

100%