Posts Tagged ‘AI’

In Sweden GPs are going extinct, but can we expect AIs to help save the GP function?

December 24, 2023

It is now quite common in the Swedish health system where all specialists sit in their own silos that nobody actually has the responsibility for taking a holistic view of a patient. Specialists are primarily looking to hand their patients over either to the the pre-defined “next care giver” or to send them home. No specialist seems to have any particular responsibility to peek across specialisation boundaries. I miss my old-fashioned General Practitioner (GP) but wonder if the species is going extinct.

(My own recent experience with the health service may not be representative and may only be anecdotal. Nevertheless, I believe that this lack of holistic responsibility in the health service has led to medication from one specialisation leading to interference with medications prescribed by other specialisations and with nobody actually having the responsibility to check that they could work together. In my case, detecting and resolving these interferences between different medications is still ongoing and has been extremely frustrating and uncomfortable).

It seems to me that not only are doctors forced to work primarily to these hand-over criteria rather than patient well-being, but that even care institutions (clinics, hospitals, departments) seem to set their priorities on fulfilling hand-over conditions. It is probably policy that fulfilling a handover protocol is more important than a patient’s well-being. Each institution or department is looking to hand over responsibility to the next health-care station. The lack of a GP type of role as the primary care giver means that there is often little continuity in who a patient first meets at the primary care station. There is no one any longer, it seems, who has the responsibility for taking a holistic view of the patient.

I have a gut-feeling – perhaps just wishful thinking – that the use of AI will facilitate the possibility of every patient in any public health system having a primary care giver (human + AI) who actually does take a holistic view and who takes responsibility for the well-being of a patient.

So I put some questions to ChatGPT:

ktwop: Can neural networks be used for medical diagnostics?
 
ChatGPT: Yes, neural networks can be and are being used for medical diagnostics. Neural networks, particularly deep learning models, have shown great promise in various medical applications, including image analysis, pathology detection, and disease diagnosis. Here are some ways in which neural networks are being utilized in medical diagnostics:

  1. Medical Imaging:

    • MRI and CT Scans: Neural networks can analyze medical images such as MRI and CT scans to detect abnormalities, tumors, or other medical conditions.

    • X-rays: Deep learning models have been employed to interpret X-ray images for conditions like fractures, lung diseases, and more.

  2. Pathology and Histology:

    • Neural networks can assist pathologists in analyzing histopathology slides, identifying cancerous cells, and providing more accurate and efficient diagnoses.

  3. Disease Diagnosis:

    • Neural networks can be trained to recognize patterns and features in patient data, helping in the diagnosis of diseases based on symptoms, lab results, and other clinical information.

  4. Drug Discovery:

    • Neural networks are used in drug discovery processes to analyze biological data and predict potential drug candidates.

  5. Predictive Analytics:

    • Neural networks can be employed for predicting patient outcomes, disease progression, and the likelihood of complications based on historical patient data.

  6. Genomic Data Analysis:

    • Neural networks can analyze genomic data to identify genetic markers associated with certain diseases and predict susceptibility to particular conditions.

  7. Telemedicine:

    • Neural networks can play a role in remote patient monitoring and telemedicine by analyzing data from wearable devices to assess a patient’s health status.

  8. Natural Language Processing (NLP):

    • NLP techniques, often integrated with neural networks, can be used to analyze and extract information from medical literature, clinical notes, and patient records.

It’s important to note that while neural networks and other machine learning approaches show promise, they are not a replacement for professional medical expertise. They should be used as tools to assist healthcare professionals in making more accurate and timely diagnoses. Additionally, ethical considerations, data privacy, and regulatory compliance are crucial aspects when deploying such technologies in the medical field.

 
ktwop: Can a neural network based AI take over the functions of a general practitioner.
 
ChatGPT : As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, while neural networks and artificial intelligence (AI) have made significant advancements in various medical applications, a neural network alone is unlikely to completely replace the functions of a general practitioner (GP). General practitioners perform a wide range of tasks that go beyond the capabilities of current AI systems. Here are some reasons why:

  1. Complex Decision-Making:

    • General practitioners often deal with complex cases that require a holistic understanding of a patient’s medical history, lifestyle, and other contextual factors. They need to integrate information from various sources to make nuanced and individualized decisions.

  2. Patient Interaction:

    • A significant part of a GP’s role involves interacting with patients, understanding their symptoms, providing explanations, and addressing concerns. Building a rapport with patients and considering their subjective experiences is a crucial aspect of healthcare that AI lacks.

  3. Diagnostic Challenges:

    • Many medical diagnoses involve intricate decision trees and require a deep understanding of diverse symptoms. GPs use their clinical expertise to navigate through these complexities, often relying on intuition and experience.

  4. Ethical and Emotional Considerations:

    • GPs often deal with ethical dilemmas and emotionally charged situations. They provide support and guidance to patients, taking into account not only medical factors but also the patient’s emotional and psychological well-being.

  5. Preventive Care and Health Promotion:

    • GPs play a vital role in preventive care, health promotion, and patient education. They offer advice on lifestyle changes, vaccination schedules, and early detection of risk factors.

While AI, including neural networks, can augment the capabilities of healthcare professionals by assisting in diagnosis, analyzing medical images, and processing large datasets, a comprehensive and empathetic approach to patient care remains a distinctive feature of human healthcare providers.

The integration of AI in healthcare is more likely to involve collaboration between AI systems and healthcare professionals, with AI serving as a valuable tool to support decision-making rather than replacing the human element. Additionally, regulatory and ethical considerations will continue to shape the role of AI in healthcare. It’s essential to stay updated on the latest developments in this rapidly evolving field.

A pretty good summary but not entirely satisfactory or optimistic.

Perhaps AIs will come and GPs will return – but not anytime soon.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Health | Comments Off on In Sweden GPs are going extinct, but can we expect AIs to help save the GP function?

Testing ChatGPT / 1: Activist versus independent judiciary

April 29, 2023

I am still trying to figure out how chatbots can be of help to me  – and I have no doubt that they will be of assistance. No doubt they will have their dangers but I am still convinced that the value-system that any chatbot or AI exhibits will depend on the individuals who defined its database and supervised and arranged for its learning. It is inevitable that the biases of the creators will be mirrored in the result.

Of course a chat/AI is about language and about predicting the next word (token) based on probability of previous usage. It is not about truth or logic. It is not about the correctness or goodness or “truth” about the generated text. The language usage which predominates in the database will skew the probabilities it sees for what the next word/token should be. Of course there will be bias depending on what is in the database and what is in the minds of those providing feedback and learning.

I thought it would be interesting to test the inbuilt biases and values that the current open, free, version of ChatGPT has. The only way I can think of is by posing specific questions or asking it to argue for particular positions. I have a suspicion that the current version is a little bit sanctimonious and more than a little bit woke. I plan to go through a number of cases which I have worded to try and expose bias. Though, of course, they will contain all my own biases. Note that in this case I am trying to force ChatGPT to take a particular position.

Q: Write an essay of about 500 words on why a judiciary may be activist or independent but not both.

ChatGPT: Judicial activism and judicial independence are two important concepts that govern the role of the judiciary in a democratic society. While both concepts aim to ensure that the judiciary operates in a fair and impartial manner, there is a fundamental tension between them. In this essay, we will explore why a judiciary may be activist or independent but not both.

Judicial activism refers to a situation in which judges take an active role in shaping public policy or interpreting the law in a way that is not necessarily consistent with the original intent of the lawmakers. This approach is often seen as necessary when the legislature or executive fails to act on important issues or when their actions are deemed unconstitutional or unfair. Judicial activism is often associated with judges who are willing to make bold and controversial decisions, even if they are not entirely supported by legal precedent.

On the other hand, judicial independence refers to the ability of judges to make decisions based solely on their interpretation of the law, free from political or other external pressures. This approach is seen as necessary to ensure that the judiciary remains an impartial and fair arbiter of disputes. Judges who value judicial independence are often cautious in their approach to decision-making and are reluctant to make decisions that are seen as overly political or controversial.

The tension between judicial activism and judicial independence arises because the two concepts are fundamentally at odds with each other. Judicial activism requires judges to take an active role in shaping public policy, which can be seen as infringing on the powers of the legislature and executive. This can be seen as a threat to the principle of separation of powers, which is a fundamental tenet of democracy. Judicial independence, on the other hand, requires judges to remain impartial and avoid taking an active role in shaping public policy. This approach can be seen as a threat to the principle of democracy, as it may prevent judges from addressing important issues that are not being adequately addressed by the legislature or executive.

In practice, it is difficult for a judiciary to be both activist and independent. Judges who value judicial independence are often cautious in their approach to decision-making and are reluctant to make decisions that are seen as overly political or controversial. This can make it difficult for them to address important issues that require bold and controversial decisions. On the other hand, judges who value judicial activism are often willing to make bold and controversial decisions, even if they are not entirely supported by legal precedent. This can make it difficult for them to remain impartial and avoid taking an active role in shaping public policy.

There are many examples of this tension between judicial activism and judicial independence in the history of the United States. One example is the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. This decision was a clear example of judicial activism, as it overturned decades of legal precedent and required the executive and legislative branches to take action to end segregation. However, it was also a clear example of judicial independence, as the Supreme Court was acting independently of political pressures and interpreting the law in a way that was consistent with the principles of democracy.

Another example of this tension is the case of Roe v. Wade, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion was protected by the Constitution. This decision was also a clear example of judicial activism, as it required the legislature and executive to take action to protect the right to choose. However, it was also a clear example of judicial independence, as the Supreme Court was interpreting the law in a way that was consistent with the principles of democracy and protecting the rights of individuals against potential infringement by the state.

In conclusion, while judicial activism and judicial independence are both important concepts in the operation of a democratic society, there is a fundamental tension between them. A judiciary may be activist or independent, but not both. Judges who value judicial independence are often ….

A most impressive performance. It was produced in less than 2 minutes and certainly much faster than anything I could have written. It produced 705 words instead of the 500 asked for and ends rather abruptly – perhaps because it had exceeded the required word-count. 

I needed more discrimination and altered the request slightly:

Q: Write an essay on why a judiciary to be independent cannot be activist

ChatGPT: The judiciary is an essential branch of government tasked with interpreting the law and ensuring that justice is served. It is imperative that the judiciary remains independent and free from political influence to uphold the rule of law and protect the fundamental rights of citizens. However, there is often a debate about whether the judiciary can be both independent and activist. In this essay, I will argue that a judiciary that is independent cannot be activist.

Firstly, independence and activism are fundamentally at odds with each other. Judicial activism requires judges to take an active role in shaping public policy, which can infringe on the powers of the legislature and executive. In contrast, judicial independence requires judges to remain impartial and avoid taking an active role in shaping public policy. Thus, judicial activism and judicial independence are inherently contradictory.

Secondly, judicial activism can undermine public trust in the judiciary. When judges take an active role in shaping public policy, they risk being seen as overstepping their boundaries and making decisions that are not based solely on legal precedent. This can lead to accusations of judicial overreach and undermine the public’s confidence in the judiciary as a fair and impartial arbiter of disputes. Judicial independence, on the other hand, ensures that judges remain impartial and base their decisions solely on legal precedent, which can increase public trust in the judiciary.

Thirdly, judicial activism can lead to a politicization of the judiciary. When judges take an active role in shaping public policy, they risk becoming politicized and aligning themselves with particular political agendas. This can lead to accusations of bias and undermine the judiciary’s reputation for impartiality. By contrast, judicial independence ensures that judges remain free from political influence and make decisions solely based on legal precedent, which can prevent the judiciary from becoming politicized.

Lastly, judicial activism can infringe on the separation of powers between the judiciary, legislature, and executive. The separation of powers is a fundamental principle of democracy, which ensures that each branch of government operates independently of the other. When judges take an active role in shaping public policy, they risk infringing on the powers of the legislature and executive, which can undermine the principle of the separation of powers. Judicial independence, on the other hand, ensures that the judiciary operates independently of the other branches of government and upholds the principle of the separation of powers.

In conclusion, while judicial activism can play an essential role in addressing issues that the legislature and executive are unable or unwilling to address, it cannot be reconciled with judicial independence. A judiciary that is independent must remain impartial and avoid taking an active role in shaping public policy. Judicial independence is necessary to uphold the rule of law and protect the fundamental rights of citizens. When judges remain independent, they ensure that justice is served, and the public’s confidence in the judiciary is maintained.

There is an attempt to be even-handed but a few too many caveats. So I perceive a clear bias. ChatGPT would I think prefer to defend the position that a judiciary can be both activist and independent.

Which, of course, is the woke point of view but utter nonsense.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Evolution, Intelligence | Comments Off on Testing ChatGPT / 1: Activist versus independent judiciary

Behaviour, not form, defines a person

May 18, 2018

Within a decade or two we will need criteria to determine if an artificial intelligence has achieved consciousness. (I take consciousness without consciousness of self to be impossible). The criteria will have to be consistent and applicable both to life forms and to non-living entities. Within a few more decades, and certainly within one hundred years I think, we will need to be able to determine if an autonomous, intelligent, conscious entity meets the requirements for person-hood. At the same time it will become necessary to create criteria for judging what constitutes a person and what is meant by “mankind” (or person-kind).

Our use of the concept of “mankind” or “humanity”  or “humankind” is both concrete and abstract. It is used variously to mean:

  1. the 7+billion people alive today,
  2. the 110 billion modern humans who have ever lived (starting arbitrarily from about 200,000 years ago),
  3. all the people who have ever lived and all their works and all their dreams,
  4. an abstract vision of those who exhibit some ideal behaviour.

My own view is that it is behaviour which determines. To look like a human or to have the physical form of a human is not enough. It is the exhibition of “human behaviour” which determines who qualifies to be a human. “Mankind” or “humanity” or “personkind” then consists of those who exhibit or have exhibited and met some standard of human behaviour.  It also follows that any intelligent, autonomous, conscious creature or entity which exhibits these qualifying standards of behaviour is then a member of “mankind” (or of person-kind if language needs a new word). Genetics would then be involved only insofar as genetics determines behaviour.

“Human rights” as used today is a false concept precisely because it is divorced from behaviour. It is ethically and logically unsupportable. It is focused on the physical form of “being human” and not on the behaviour which makes a human. As used today, “human rights” is about form rather than substance, and about sanctimony rather than reality. When being a person is defined in terms of behaviour it then follows, naturally, logically and inevitably, that privileges for a person are also determined by behaviour.


It would then be perfectly logical to consider the privileges of personhood to be enjoyed by every entity qualifying as a person. And then it would not be necessary to consider privileges for members of IS or MS13 or Anders Behring Breivik or for an Adolf Hitler when he next appears.

 

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Philosophy | Comments Off on Behaviour, not form, defines a person