I am extremely happy about Watson, but I need to point out some possibilities:
Imagine this scenario. John earns 100K $/year, so he gets access to Watson. Jerry earns only 30K $/year, so he can only use the open source one, which has 10% less accuracy. That would be tragic.
Another scenario: doctor X sees the Watson prediction, and has a doubt about them. He doesn't say anything for fear he could be charged with malpractice if the patient dies under his different treatment. Thus, doctor X is reduced to a yes man, and his boss is not even another man, but an artificial brain. How many doctors would dare oppose Watson ? Do we need doctors any more if all they do is rubber stamp Watson's results? What about medical students - if they know that the difference in diagnosis accuracy between a medium and a top student has been reduced to just 2-3%, why strive to learn more than the other? After all, it's the same whether you are in the top 1% or around the middle of your class.
Ok, now for a positive scenario: we get cell phones with biometric sensors (medical tricorder) and we can input our symptoms. We are trained to do that because we took a 3 month medical class while in high-school. It was compulsory. So, now we can treat 80-90% of our problems without going into a doctor's office. This is amazing especially for remote areas and places where there is no access to doctors for hundreds of miles.
Africa would be revolutionized by it. A single medical nurse with a cell phone / mobile lab could service many people.
There's lots of critics of the current US healthcare system who think so. Jerry on $30k a year (without insurance) currently posts pictures of his spots to 4chan, and get's told "it's cancer, you're gonna die", "cut it off", "no prob, it's nothing", and even less useful suggestions.
I wouldn't describe some people suffering from envy as "tragic".
Similarly, if a bunch of racists feel anger because black people can now eat at the same diner as them, I think the word "tragic" would be the wrong word.
The argument was that the example given wasn't necessarily a Pareto improvement, even if one was trying to put aside issues of social justice by invoking economics.
Because, as I said "there is a psychological, emotional or social cost in having some people much worse off than others". In order to invoke Pareto optimality you must define utility functions and you can justify essentially any policy by omitting costs and externalities in those functions.
Certainly, but that's not the difficulty. The difficulty is not in stating the problem, but imagining trying to solve it.
Problem: some will suffer emotionally and psychologically by being underemployed or unemployed.
Solution: There isn't one. Welcome to reality.
At one extreme, we have a negative utopia run by a techno-elite that designs, builds and installs an army of robots to relieve everyone of dull, repetitive, boring jobs, and thereby produces an unequal distribution of wealth even more extreme than what is true at present.
At the other, we have another negative utopia in which no on goes wanting, resources are distributed according to Marxist ideals (from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs). I think the second has already been tried, and failed, and I don't think the automation of labor will change the outcome.
Between the negative utopias, we have some version of reality, without the ability or the will to force any extreme solution onto the public. We'll just muddle along and adjust to the future, to the degree that we can foresee, and deal with, its effects.
"What about medical students - if they know that the difference in diagnosis accuracy between a medium and a top student has been reduced to just 2-3%, why strive to learn more than the other?"
From what I've heard, med school is mostly about memorizing huge amounts of information without a whole lot of critical thinking. But that's a task that computers are infinitely better at than humans. Wouldn't it be a good thing if Watson could free med students from rote memorization, allowing them to instead focus on something that humans are actually good at, like research?
Correction: Healthcare in Africa "could" be revolutionized by it. No amount of tech/aid is going to "fix" Africa until decades of human greed and stupidity get reversed.
The parts of Africa which aren't going to the hospital aren't revolutionized by it. And the ones which go to the hospital and pick up an infection aren't revolutionized by it.
Imagine this scenario. John earns 100K $/year, so he gets access to Watson. Jerry earns only 30K $/year, so he can only use the open source one, which has 10% less accuracy. That would be tragic.
Another scenario: doctor X sees the Watson prediction, and has a doubt about them. He doesn't say anything for fear he could be charged with malpractice if the patient dies under his different treatment. Thus, doctor X is reduced to a yes man, and his boss is not even another man, but an artificial brain. How many doctors would dare oppose Watson ? Do we need doctors any more if all they do is rubber stamp Watson's results? What about medical students - if they know that the difference in diagnosis accuracy between a medium and a top student has been reduced to just 2-3%, why strive to learn more than the other? After all, it's the same whether you are in the top 1% or around the middle of your class.
Ok, now for a positive scenario: we get cell phones with biometric sensors (medical tricorder) and we can input our symptoms. We are trained to do that because we took a 3 month medical class while in high-school. It was compulsory. So, now we can treat 80-90% of our problems without going into a doctor's office. This is amazing especially for remote areas and places where there is no access to doctors for hundreds of miles.
Africa would be revolutionized by it. A single medical nurse with a cell phone / mobile lab could service many people.