On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Bira <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Travis Watkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> I would not count on that. >> >> There are already specialized programs that are better than humans in >> a number of fields, including medical diagnosis(saw an article on this >> some years ago, but people still want a human, so some doctors use it >> as a second opinion/sanity check) > > That's a rule-based expert system, IIRC. It can make decisions based > on its pre-programmed rules and on properly-formatted input, yes, but > that's all it does. It can't really be considered "intelligent" in the > same way a person can, which is what I assume is the "real thing" > that's being referred to here. > > -- > Bira
Funny how doctors get payed so much for not being intelligent but just being experts systems. I am not being sarcastic. We seem to get payed more when the task does not take skills that are easy for a human like memorizing decision trees. It is called differential diagnosis and really is quite hard to do well. I am currently studying medicine so I can say this with real knowledge. I also read about that expert system in a Prolog programming book. The programmers were upset because their systems success rate was so low, so they decided to test real doctors to see what they should be shooting for. The doctors did much worse than the expert system. I think I bought that book in 1986. I wonder how much better the systems are now? -- Douglas E Knapp Why do we live? _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
