[mquander]

The linked report seems almost useless -- it doesn't say anything about an error rate or a sample size, so it's a mystery whether 9 out of 20 systems “fabricated information and made suggestions to patients' treatment plans” ten out of ten times, or one out of a thousand times.

If we just postulate that the systems have a high error rate, I wonder why they are being adopted. They seem extremely easy to test, so I don't see why doctors or hospitals or governments should be getting tricked into buying them if they suck.

[MallocVoidstar]

>If we just postulate that the systems have a high error rate, I wonder why they are being adopted.

From the article: "While 30 percent of a platform’s evaluation score depended solely on whether they had a domestic presence in Ontario, the accuracy of medical notes contributed only 4 percent to the total score."

Accuracy wasn't really part of the scoring, Ontario doesn't care about it.

[nitwit005]

Scoring systems that function by adding up several parts never make sense. Video game magazines used to do that, but it meant that you could have wretched gameplay, and still get a decent score, from points in other categories like audio, graphics, and cinematics.