> There is a study showing that doctors who use AI to help detect cancer become less skilled at detecting cancer without AI.

Not exactly an argument against using AI, is it? It's a bit like saying that GPS makes people worse at navigating by memory, which is true, but also not a strong argument for going back to paper maps. I feel the discourse is more about "stop using AI" and less about "how can we ensure our backup skills doesn't disappear".

▲

deniska 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We should keep some people around who can read paper maps (and keep paper maps around too). We need to keep doctors around who can keep working without a computer. It's a civilization threatening issue not to. There might be plenty reasons, from natural disasters, to self-inflicted "geopolitics", when we suddenly have to take a technological step back, and it's in our interest to maintain "30-50 years ago" level of tech possible, so that we don't have to start all over from something resembling a bronze age.

	▲	TomasBM 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Definite agree on having human-based redundant systems. But I think the point the parent commenter made is: if there's not a functional difference in the result (i.e., job satisfies the definition of done), it doesn't matter if the AI generated the code or did the diagnosis. But I think it's also fair to say that the process matters, even if the result is the same. If something exists for our benefit (e.g., there's no real alternative to learning-by-doing, and people need to know stuff for safety/security reasons), and we're fine with the trade-off, there's no reason to just give up the process to the AI.

▲

ThrowawayR2 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The people under GNSS jamming in war zones might disagree with you about the value of being able to read a map.

(And I'm unfortunately no longer as certain that "Well, that sort of thing can't happen where _I_ live." as I would have been a decade ago.)