| ▲ | nubg 2 days ago |
| > Marraffa says Burt is fully HIPAA compliant and that the AI is not open-source and does not generate or manipulate data. We need to fight the talking point that open source is bad! |
|
| ▲ | aswegs8 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| How could something like open source ever be perceived as bad? |
| |
| ▲ | freeone3000 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The idea, within regulated circles, is that it lacks provenance - there’s no vendor to sue. Many open source licenses also carry an explicit disclaimer of merchantability and fitness for purpose. These are taken seriously, and open-source software is viewed akin to car parts found on the side of the road. They could work but it’s better to let someone else verify. | | |
| ▲ | altmanaltman 2 days ago | parent [-] | | But in the context of privacy it makes no sense though right? Open source and close source models (depending on vendor) both can be configured in a way that protects privacy of the user. The entire quote is wonky despite your point about companies preferring vendor-based system rather than raw dog oss |
|
|
|
| ▲ | altmanaltman 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| how can it not manipulate data and still work? does it do it by magic? absolute L quote by the spokesperson |
| |
| ▲ | nazgulsenpai 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It will probably sound nice to laypersons but you're right, it has to have access to, at a minimum, a data extract with relevant information to perform it's tasks, although in my experience in the pharmacy IT world, a database view. |
|
|
| ▲ | stronglikedan 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| but if the source is open, the ay-eyes can find the zero days! /s |
