TASER uses their products on their employees? Lol that's wild

you don't know the half of it.

reuters.com

(www.reuters.com)

Shawn Gorman, a lawyer who worked at Axon until 2019, said the company had a high-pressure culture of loyalty, unlike anything he has seen in nearly two decades of practice.

“It was truly toxic,” he said.

this is an employee and her mother getting tased at one of these events.

AI and robotics are coming for the highest paid jobs first. The attack on education is much more sinister than you think. We are approaching an era where many thinking and high cost labor fields will be eliminated. This attack on education is because the plan is to replace it all with AI.

It is pretty sickening really to think of a world where your AI teacher supplied by Zombie Twitter will teach history lessons to young pupils about whether or not the Holocaust is real. I am not making this shit up.

This is no longer about wars against nations. This has become the war for the human mind and billionaires just found the cheat code.

That would be wonderful. The current way that the world has been "working" for a good while now makes me think it unlikely, unfortunately. The vast majority of technological innovation in the last half-century has been used to extract wealth and replace options available to the non-ultra-wealthy with inferior substitutes that are cheaper to make, often for the same effective cost.

Who's dying on what hill now?

See the part that I dont like is that this is a learning algorithm trained on videos of surgeries.

That's such a fucking stupid idea. Thats literally so much worse than letting surgeons use robot arms to do surgeries as your primary source of data and making fine tuned adjustments based on visual data in addition to other electromagnetic readings

Yeah but the training set of videos is probably infinitely larger, and the thing about AI is that if the training set is too small they don't really work at all. Once you get above a certain data set size they start to become competent.

After all I assume the people doing this research have already considered that. I doubt they're reading your comment right now and slapping their foreheads and going damn this random guy on the internet is right, he's so much more intelligent than us scientists.

They obviously don't feel comfortable with the robot doing surgery on humans just yet either which is why they're not actually suggesting doing that yet. It will have to go through years and years of certification before that's even considered.

I'm sure most surgeries will still be conducted by humans but there are situations where one of these would be extremely helpful. Any situation where a surgeon isn't currently accessible and can't quickly get there. Remote communities, Disaster relief, Arctic research facilities, Starships trapped in the Delta quadrant, War zones, Ships at sea.

Yeah it's not like I refuse to drive my car because it wasn't handcrafted by a human.

It is an electrical fault on four wheels, but that's just because it's old.

Outside of the US there are pretty stringent rules about what can and cannot be used in the medical profession. Typically it will take at least a decade for a drug to be approved, which is actually a problem in and of itself, but you're not concerned about that, you're concerned about technology being used before it's ready.

As for "devaluing the work of surgeons", surgeons are overworked as it is, there is nowhere near enough of them. If they don't have to do simple procedures then they are available to do the more complex surgeries that actually require skill. They'll be fine. Wealth isn't really a factor in countries where healthcare isn't profit motivated.

Hey boss ready for your unnecessary heart transplant just to please some random guy on the internet?

Yeah so let's get this done I've got a meeting in 2 hours.

Then it's all Inner Space and invented nanobots. So you win some, you lose some.

I assume my insides are pretty much like everyone else's. I feel like if there was that much of a complication it would have been pretty obvious before the procedure started.

"Hey this guy had two heads, I'm sure the AI will work it out."

The idea that a carefully curated data set may yield better results seems to be something that even the likes of Google engineers can't get their heads around.

Maybe we could install a murder mode switch.

Perhaps an algorithm where its effectiveness is inversely proportionate to your bank account.

That's such a fucking stupid idea.

Care to elaborate why?

From my point of view I don't see a problem with that. Or let's say: the potential risks highly depend on the specific setup.

I trust a good machine much more than any human.

That's absolutely not the point. I was criticizing the journalism, not technology.

Do you think a 5 bed hospital will have the money to afford a robotic surgeon?

Being trained on videos means it has no ability to adapt, improvise, or use knowledge during the surgery.

Edit: However, in the context of this particular robot, it does seem that additional input was given and other training was added in order for it to expand beyond what it was taught through the videos. As the study noted, the surgeries were performed with 100% accuracy. So in this case, I personally don't have any problems.