Many consider the changes in vaccine recommendation by the STIKO (german panel for vaccine recommendation) as a bad thing. Personally, I like that they are changing their opinion based on new data - what else should they do?
Are you suggesting Merkel should have taken a second dose of AstraZeneca?
I'm not saying that the change of direction by the STIKO is a bad thing - new data leads to new conclusions and that they're openly admitting that with a change in their recommendation is very good.
Nonetheless, the whole communication during the vaccination campaign, especially regarding the AZ vaccine and the change in direction, went really bad and to me, its no surprise that the acceptance of the AZ vaccine went downhill
I agree, that it would not need to be 100% accurate. However, automation with low accuracy would induce other kinds of errors (e.g. complacency or loss of skill in doctors). Therefore, automation shouldbe significantly better than humans to justify their use.
This is a course plan for computer science. I don't see why Artificial Intelligence should have its own "degree". However, there is a trend towards these niche degrees at universities too.
Because most people don't want to be computer scientists, they just want to land an extremely high-paying job doing <trendy overhyped computer topic of 20XX>.
Yes. Many surgeons also want to get all the sweet prestige and feel like demigods among the mortals and don't all necessarily get an intrinsic excitement from sawing those bones.
It's fine to want money. Who are we to judge someone who sets the goal of getting a good job, looks into upcoming fields that pay well and then applies to a university to spend years studying it. It's perfectly fine and rational. In free tuition countries this may be someone from a lower economic class, crawling out of their situation.
It's legit and okay not to be a wunderkind from age 2 who built computers with his dad from the get go in order to be eligible to study CS or AI.
Of course once they are in, they have to go along with the program.
But I get annoyed with this gatekeeping attitude that only us nerds are worthy to learn AI. If you are smarter and put more effort in, you don't have to become bitter, there is nothing to fear, you will be able to demonstrate your expertise and will still get good jobs, even if there is a bigger supply of the those who are only in it for the money.
It's not a criticism, really (there's nothing wrong with wanting a job) but parent comment was asking why an academic field is being balkanized into a variety of specialized trade school topics, and that's why: to try and produce graduates who are immediately employable in the technology du jour.
Yes, on the other hand it's often the case that those chasing the jobs in the hyped sector can get caught in phony parts. They can be easier to sway and ultimately be milked more, than those who are on a more stable footing. It seems often to be the case that such specialized new programs get a cohort of students with this attitude, whey want results and have a "teach me" mindset with poor average grades across the studentship. This in turn makes the uni reduce the difficulty and in depthness of the program compared to the traditional CS program of the same university.
Dentists, nurses, physiotherapists and physicians are all degree level medical specialties. Engineering is split. What’s the argument against doing it for medicine other than tradition?
> Engineering is split. What’s the argument against doing it for medicine other than tradition?
One might argue medicine is a split-off piece from natural sciences.
A counter-argument might be that while the natural sciences are almost always split, where they aren't, such as at Cambridge, medicine is still of course separate.
I think the real reason is probably just that there's more value to most medicos in a whole-body understanding than there is to most engineers in a multi-disciplinary understanding.
I'd quite like to need to routinely design electronic circuits, CAD/CAM packaging for them with certain mechanical constraints, and develop software to run on them in my work, but I don't; that'd need to be a very small company working on a physical product for that not to be at least two people's jobs.
I feel that mechanical engineers should have a bit of understanding about what is going on behind the scenes when they click on things in a CAD package.
From talking to recent students and current professors, I'm not sure they are learning this as part of a degree course.
Yes, maybe my approach and perspective are skewed by traditional thinking. Unfortunately, I'm still failing to see a need for AI split in CS. An AI student might not need to learn basics of programming languages, operating systems, OOP, DB management, and many other core topics for CS but what else remains to be honest? If we were to simply convert elective AI courses to "must", then are we going to offer classic CS courses as "elective"?
The comment is more about splitting it at the undergraduate level. I think most of the medical specialties you listed will have basically the same undergraduate experience, though I could be mistaken.
This reminded me of the section about "Clutter" in the book "On writing well":
> Clutter is the official language used by corporations to hide their mistakes. When the Digital Equipment Corporation eliminated 3,000 jobs its statement didn’t mention layoffs; those were “involuntary methodologies.” When an Air Force missile crashed, it “impacted with the ground prematurely.”
> When an Air Force missile crashed, it “impacted with the ground prematurely.”
When I was a youngster in the Army Cadets in Australia I was told by one of the regular Army seargeants that no one in his company was ever “lost”. They could be “temporarily spatially displaced” but getting lost was strictly forbidden.
