The "proto" in this case would have to refer to a synapsid, which have been described as "mammal-like reptiles", some of whom were the ancestors of the mammals which didn't yet exist 295 million years ago.
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.
>> jobs are merely mechanical and there is no high-level reasoning involved
This is a very binary way of thinking about it. More usual is that components of many professions are mechanical and can be automated, while other components are not mechanical and thus harder to automate. Regardless, if some % of the mechanical work goes away, it is unlikely that human workers just work less. Instead, they will work just as much and the overall demand for workers is reduced by %
Between 1985 and 2025 we went from programming in 8086 assembly language to high level languages like python, typescript and go. These automate a lot of the drudgery of programming in asm, so why has the overall demand for programmers not diminish (in fact it increased massively)?
Can you describe a driving scenario where the correct action couldn't be determined "mechanically"? Are you thinking of something like the trolley problem?
That is such a contrived phenomenon, it has taken decades of lobbying and destruction of political accountability to create the conditions where a person considered sane would touch that idea instead of immediately skipping over to driverless trains.
Incredibly wasteful gimmick, I don't get why the usians are still struggling away at it now that the chinese seem to have already done it.
I don't know where you've gotten the idea that cars are something you can "skip over" on the way to trains. Public transit is great, and the US should do it better, but it doesn't obsolete every other form of transit. The vast majority of people in every country who can afford access to cars use them regularly.
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).
It was my understanding that many of the studies on moderate alcohol consumption included people in the study who could not drink for medical reasons (or were former alcoholics) which skewed the results for the zero-alcohol groups.
Studies on red wine included people whose only source of fruit was red wine, which similarly skewed the results.
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.
Thanks. Your link shows that the US is above all tracked western countries in terms of abortion rate, which goes against OP's point about the US having a lower abortion rate than comparable countries.
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.
It makes me sad to think that I contribute to this process. I have to admit... that I probably do read alot of those clickbait articles giving them more views.
It makes me even more sad when I think about the platforms that are removing the ability to downvote incorrect/misleading information.
