The Guardian needs to raise their bar on what to report and how to give readers full context on the ongoing NFT AI trust me bro crypto scam and that context would be that it is a mathematical model of human language and not medical expert or replacement for one.

▲

sigmar 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>The Guardian needs to raise their bar on what to report and how to give readers full context

Should they not report on peer reviewed articles published in Science? or only report published articles that fit your priors?

	▲	wg0 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Fair enough. But there's lot of faulty and wrong peer reviewed research as well. One such paper comes to mind which is probably cited some 7000+ times in other papers but itself is wrong.

▲

pixel_popping 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So we can eventually classify AI models as Software experts, but not as Medical experts, why so?

	▲	wg0 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I don't classify them as software experts either. Anyone doing so is probably not an expert themselves. I take them as those code generation command line tools like create react app and such.
	▲	jval43 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		We can't. It's just that everyone and their dog has an interest in selling you that lie because money. Stochastic parrots can code yes, but that does not make them experts. Don't trust them with your life.

▲

tene80i 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s a peer reviewed study in one of the world’s top science journals. It’s not some random person on a podcast.