ACCforum: ... - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

... .

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 24 March 2014 - 06:53 PM

.
0

#2 User is offline   Marc 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 208
  • Joined: 08-November 12

Posted 24 March 2014 - 10:50 PM

"Hallo Dr Machine, I am sick and suffer..."


I cannot see this work, as the investment would be enormous, to have medical centres equipped with computers with cameras, microphones and more, but hey, it cannot be ruled out, as many other things once considered impossible have happened.

But such a "machine" would have to be fed with images and other information, on how a "healthy" person would look and act like. It would lead to endless data gathering, from birth on, I suppose, and then it would have to be maintained regularly, to provide for age related and other changes in features and whatever.

There will always need to be a human medical standing beside or behind such equipment, to double check though.

Yet it is daunting, to think of the future with such prospects ahead.


0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 March 2014 - 11:16 PM

How does a drunk person know they are too drunk to work?
How does a sick person know they are too sick to work?

Can a machine then measure if I am too sick to work?

Why don't we just ask a doctor?
0

#4 User is offline   unit1of2 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 869
  • Joined: 20-March 12

Posted 26 March 2014 - 01:19 PM

View PostMarc, on 24 March 2014 - 10:50 PM, said:

"Hallo Dr Machine, I am sick and suffer..."


I cannot see this work, as the investment would be enormous, to have medical centres equipped with computers with cameras, microphones and more, but hey, it cannot be ruled out, as many other things once considered impossible have happened.

But such a "machine" would have to be fed with images and other information, on how a "healthy" person would look and act like. It would lead to endless data gathering, from birth on, I suppose, and then it would have to be maintained regularly, to provide for age related and other changes in features and whatever.

There will always need to be a human medical standing beside or behind such equipment, to double check though.

Yet it is daunting, to think of the future with such prospects ahead.





I fail to comprehend how any such thing, as a machine, could ever, ever competently diagnose wither a person is sick or not... When we don't have competent doctors recognising 'ill, sick, health compromised' people to start with. There has to be control evidence of the person to start with, loaded into the machine... as you say. They will never have this available to them to make any such comparison/s.

'Due' to incompetency, to many undiagnosed folk are forced to slip through our medical system. People cannot always supply up to date Xrays, blood test results, past and current facial visual media content or current status details for a machine to make any comparative observations................. This machine business is like, on the same page as current 'psycho babble tests used lately'..... It's Quackery at it's finest, again... a fat money waster and a huge fail.



0

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10609
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 March 2014 - 01:42 PM

Unit one of two your assumptions are quite incorrect.
The successful diagnosis rates for computer-based intelligences far exceed that of the medical profession in human form. The problem is these computer-based systems make spectacular stuff ups when they go wrong. When properly integrated into the medical process they are extremely useful tool as there is no possibility of human being can consider all of the variables are possibilities when making a diagnosis but when the human has oversight then the rate of correct diagnosis far outweighs both human or machine. These forms of artificial intelligence have existed for many many years and function perfectly well.

The problem is incompetent bureaucrats seem to think that they can have access to such equipment and press the buttons themselves. For example the ACC operate what is called "Best practice medicine" which is essentially a system of profiling modelling which is overly simplistic and must leave their frontline and decision-making staff into believing that they themselves can override medical diagnosis. They've even gone one step further by collecting the baseline information themselves by way of their private investigators and other sources so as to feed the core information into their system without any medical know-how whatsoever. They then challenge and even threaten the medical profession with criminal prosecution for not agreeing with them. I was in the room with my own doctor when the ACC called one-time which ended up in a flaming row between my doctor and the ACC person on the other end of the phone whereby the doctor was being challenged directly as to his own competence by a person who have no medical training whatsoever but relied upon their computer-generated diagnostic tools and profiling procedures.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users