1 Like
Why would ■■■■ intercourse make medicine redundant?
2 Likes
It’s going to be interesting the copyright claims for all this. There are a couple of them already because if you use copyrighted material to train your model do you need to pay royalties.
I reckon you should.
1 Like
“blindsided by the announcement” lmao
they didn’t think for a moment they’d be replaced wholesale by a cheaper option the minute it became viable? lolol
did it to themselves
4 Likes
All News Corp needs to do is follow the acronym WWHS(BIE). What would Hitler say, but in English.
1 Like
Completely serious. It’s going to happen whether you like it or not I reckon. Give me a high tech algorithm over a snooty medical student any day.
Go for your life, then.
You already have google.
Would certainly make my job easier.
2 Likes
Murfuch’s new columnist: Anne Droid.
1 Like
The result when you ask AI about diagnosing medical problems using AI.
AI diagnosis in medicine is revolutionizing the field of healthcare by providing accurate and efficient diagnoses. Artificial Intelligence algorithms are designed to analyze large amounts of patient data, including medical records, test results, and symptoms, to identify patterns and make predictions about diseases. This technology has the potential to significantly reduce misdiagnoses and improve patient outcomes, while also relieving the burden on healthcare professionals by augmenting their diagnostic capabilities. With AI diagnosis in medicine, the future of healthcare looks promising, with faster and more accurate diagnoses leading to better treatment options and ultimately, saving lives.
At least it’s intelligent enough to self promote. lol.
I think it’s like all AI applications: it’ll be game-changing in some fields, almost useless in others.
I can’t imagine AI being hugely helpful in addiction medicine, for example.
1 Like
Where’s the defamation case against the rape victim?
Linda Reynolds? I hope it fails in equally spectacular fashion.
I mean…yes, that’s who I meant…
But it’s just another rich white conservative using private law…
1 Like
https://presscouncil.org.au/document/1840-complainant
The Press Council considered a complaint from Louise Milligan concerning an article published in The Australian headed “Greatest enemy of truth is those who conspire to lie” in print and online on 8 June 2021.
The article, an editorial, commented that “Many at the ABC express their displeasure at being held to account by The Australian. Forget that their own Media Watch has a leery obsession with News Corporation, some less thoughtful ABC journalists, and their flacks, one-time reporters who seem to have forgotten where they came from, decry any form of scrutiny”.
Conclusion
The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable to this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If material refers adversely to a person a fair opportunity is to be given for a subsequent reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3 (General Principle 4). Publications must also take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6).
The Council recognises an editorial is the voice of a newspaper and for this reason, it is given significant latitude in expressing its views. Nonetheless, the Council notes that even in an editorial, a publication remains obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is not misleading and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance. In relation to this, the Council notes the statement “Many senior people at The Australian know well the work, the habits and the hubris of … Louise Milligan” was presented as a statement of fact and not merely an expression of opinion.
Although the Council notes the publication’s comments that the editorial was not directed at the complainant, it considers that it is an unavoidable conclusion that she is associated with “bad, lazy, deceitful journalism” and that she ‘lies’ and ‘dissembles’ on the basis that she is specifically named in the article; that she is an ABC journalist; that she was once employed at The Australian and the critical comments concerning her alleged work, habits and hubris. For this reason, the Council considers the editorial, misleadingly and unfairly infers that such undesirable traits are associated with the complainant and her journalism. The Council notes that on the information before it, such an inference is not sustainable. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principles 1 and 3.
The Council notes that the complainant did not seek a right of reply. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 4.
The Council recognises the significant public interest in allowing an editorial to express robust views on matters of important public interest. However, the Council considers that naming the complainant, an ABC journalist in an editorial that commented on the ABC and what it considers are the attributes of poor journalism, was likely to cause substantial offence and distress without a sufficient public interest justification. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 6 was breached.
1 Like
And… no penalty?
1 Like
pffft.
“The Australian is required to publish the outcome.”
I guess it will be somewhere in the middle. Somewhere in a paper hardly anybody reads, and the few that do, don’t venture.
1 Like
They put it behind the paywall, because of course they did.
4 Likes
And you will like that it amounts to nothing.