I would say generally speaking that people who assume AI will replace somebody else's job believe that these jobs are merely mechanical and there is no high-level reasoning involved that would basically require AGI (when that comes about nobody is safe). So the model of the AI radiologist assumes the only job of a radiologist is to classify images, which is pretty vulnerable to near-future disruption.
I imagine, given the training involved, the job involves more than just looking at pictures? This is what I would like to see explained.
The analogy would be the "95% of code is written by AI" stat that gets trotted out, replacing code with image evaluation. Yes AI will write the code but someone has to tell the AI what to write which is the tricky part.
Yeah my understanding is that the balance of evidence on moderate alcohol consumption works this way as well (though with cancer and heart health reversed).
In my experience, Spotify generally picks 20-40 top songs from each genre and recommends them to any listener that has showed interest in that genre.
To a listener new to the genre, this yields a pretty good hit rate and the perception that Spotify is great at recommendation, but after spending any reasonable amount of time listening to the genre, the same 20-40 recommendations get stale and Spotify is completely unable to surface relevant songs from deeper in the genre catalog.
Yes, plus it's also risky as a store of value for someone even if they are complying with local law. There are greater opportunities for fraud as well as the risk the regulatory environment can change at any time.
The dynamic sort of of reminds me of the "market for lemons" in that the bad drives out the good.
Not really quite the same though. The question is what the production function for articles looks like from the publisher/journalist perspective. If it's easier to produce clickbait articles than "real" articles then I think this effect is what we see in the market for news. But from another angle, it seems more labor intensive for a journalist to spin a weak finding into a strong finding than to simply report an exciting finding directly.
This seems like it's merely codifying a practice that already existed de facto. I doubt Harvard had a specific social media monitoring policy in place when it rescinded admissions from the admits posting offensive memes, but that didn't really mean anything to the kids who got un-admitted.(1)
True, but to be fair a null result is much more interesting (and thus publishable) when it cuts against a large body of prior empirical work or theory.
Thinking specifically of Card and Krueger (1994) finding zero impact of the minimum wage on employment
I think the chief complaint of the analysts is less about the total hours worked than the fact that much of the grinding is not productive.
From what I recall, the issue was that management knew analyst time was not valuable at all, and so it was common practice for them to leave the office at 7pm with an "i need this by tomorrow" order for client materials that were meant for speculative pitching rather than supporting a live deal.
Thus the analyst ends up getting holidays and weekends crushed repeatedly by projects that aren't really that meaningful and could have been spread out in a much more manageable way if the higher ups had given any consideration at all to what they were asking.
I feel the sound -> stress connection palpably. Especially sudden loud noises like a horn honking cause me to feel upset for a long while after being startled.
Seems like a convincing argument to me for car-free spaces, although honestly I just wish we had stronger social norms against unnecessarily using a car's horn.
I find it interesting that most of my friends/social set will (rightly) dismiss "high school health class" fearmongering over drugs, but when that drug is anabolic steroids suddenly every warning is true.
It seems reasonable to me that the same skepticism applied to claims about any drug's danger - claims which frankly derive from government sources interested primarily in social engineering - should also be applied to steroids.
What I like about this reply is that I think the best answers are probably the ones you don't immediately think of, as they've changed things so immensely that they're now a component of cultural background noise.
FWIW, I remember my uncle in 2007 trying to game his contract with Verizon just so he could get AT&T and the iPhone. I thought he was being stupid for what I gathered was a useless toy. But now...