Unlike how AI has been floundering in offices, it’s been doing well elsewhere. In Part I of this three-month rundown, you may wish to take note of the fields in which it has been triumphant and perhaps wonder how its threats and hallucinations don’t seem to be a factor there.
First,
“Artificial intelligence transforms patient care and reduces burnout, physician
says” (Kennedy Hayes, Fox News, April 13th). The AI variety is “called ambient listening,”
which “surveys show” “thousands of physicians across the country are
using.” This technology is like an
enhanced transcriptionist, doing that with patient conversations in any of
various languages, and adding a summary, with “a system of checks and balances”
between doctors and software. Hundreds
of physician-employing organizations now use it, and it may soon be employed for
other health professionals as well.
In another
victory, “AI system restores speech for paralyzed patients using own voice” (Kurt
Knutsson, Fox News, April 16th). Though not yet in production, in research “an
AI-powered system… restores natural speech to paralyzed individuals in real
time,” using “brain-computer interfaces.”
It uses electrodes and “electromyography sensors” on surfaces of the
brain and face, and “learns to transform (mental activity) into the sounds of
the patient’s voice.” The author said it
represents “key advancements” in “real-time speech synthesis,” “naturalistic
speech,” and “personalized voice.”
As opposed to
what many people thought, “Your A.I. Radiologist Will Not Be With You Soon”
(Steve Lohr, The New York Times, May 14th). It seemed a good forecast that AI’s
algorithmic abilities would far surpass human radiologists’, but “in recent
years” at the Mayo Clinic, the technology has been used instead “to sharpen
images, automate routine tasks, identify medical abnormalities and predict
disease,” and “can also serve as “a second set of eyes.”” It has not been good enough to “advise other
doctors and surgeons, talk to patients, write reports and analyze medical
records,” or assess what results “might mean for an individual patient with a
particular medical history, tapping years of experience.” As a result, “a recent study from the
American College of Radiology projected a steadily growing work force through
2055.”
Onto the more
controversial area of education, we saw “How Miami Schools Are Leading 100,000
Students Into the A.I. Future” (Natasha Singer, The New York Times, May
19th). One way was to have
them critique the tool’s requested “Kennedyesque text” using the students’
knowledge from studying that president’s speeches. Another was for them to train AI models
themselves on specific topics, something also requiring understanding they had
acquired in the class. A third was
having students try “to break A.I.,” by posing “the most inappropriate
questions you can imagine,” and hoping to “prompt the chatbots to produce
racist, violent or sexually explicit responses.” Perhaps that’s the way for people to learn to
understand how AI functions, and with it, its limitations, while gaining true experience
working with it.
On
scholarship, “A.I. Is Poised to Rewrite History. Literally.” (Bill Wasik, The New York
Times, June 16th). With
its penchant for making up facts, unchecked AI could pollute the stream of historical
records. Yet here, historians have found
ways it could help without going too far, such as by identifying formerly
obscure participants and by summarizing works in ways provoking new
insights. A research assistant with a
good if strange mind can be plenty useful – if nothing it writes ends up in
final versions unverified.
That brings
us back to how artificial intelligence is serving in offices. It can be beneficial, if its shortcomings are
known and minimized. That may be the
answer there. See at least five more of
its recent achievements next week.
