this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2026
153 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
86419 readers
3228 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I do actually think AI can be very helpful in the medical field, for research in diagnostics or quickly writing reports, if responsibly done by professionals who can verify the output and with omission of patient identity.
What happened here according to the article is that they had rules on how to use AI responsibly, and they broke them all for quicker profit and tried to hide their failures.
AI is horrible for charting.
My wife is a Respiratory Therapist. They rolled out AI charting a few months ago and she tried it once. She spent just as much time proof reading the AI notes as it would have taken to write them herself.
The main problems are that medical notes are critical to patient care, and are legal documents that can and will be used in the event of legal action. If you’re using AI to document patient care, you’re opening yourself up to potentially disastrous miscommunication that can very possibly get someone killed or have their life altered. And then if someone does die, now the court can see that you documented things incorrectly and could hold you responsible.
Fair points. Thanks for your insight.
Isn't it curious how the utopian fantasy that's promised by every AI CEO seems to contradict pesky reality? At some point, you might even get worried that AI appears to inherently erode critical thinking skills.
Maybe people could responsibly use kratom to create better output too. Who knows?
I'm well aware that CEOs are pushing the exact opposite of responsible AI use. But that doesn't mean it is fully impossible to use the tool responsibly, which is also substantiated in your linked article:
It's like dynamite. It can cause a lot of harm, but also make reasonable things like mining and demolition a lot easier. The difference is Alfred Nobel was smart enough not to distribute free samples on every street corner.
I'm sticking to the kratom analogy because it, unlike dynamite, is produced by a facility somewhere, nobody can tell what's inside of it, the composition can be changed by surprise, and there's no actual rules or way to figure out what responsible usage looks like. Maybe 10% of people will be fine forever with the mystery tool. Maybe their lack of addiction is the glitch.