this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
232 points (98.7% liked)

Fuck AI

5268 readers
2025 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In a conversation at this year's rich person convention—aka the World Economic Forum—Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella warned that AI will lose public support unless it's used to "do something useful that changes the outcomes of people and communities and countries and industries."

He did at least provide one real example of what he means by all this: "When a doctor can … spend more time with the patient, because the AI is doing the transcription and entering the records in the EMR system, entering the right billing code so that the healthcare industry is better served across the payer, the provider, and the patient, ultimately—that's an outcome that I think all of us can benefit from."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 55 points 10 hours ago (11 children)

I do not want AI involved in my patient-doctor communication at all. If transcription software is needed, though I'm not convinced it is, then they can use transcription software, but at the end of the day I think a human being should be the one responsible and making decisions regarding what is and is not officially listed in a medical record. AI is not sufficiently advanced enough for me to trust that it will not make mistakes that could endanger lives.

If we wanted to save time with billing codes, we could just do away with them and have a system that just lets people get the healthcare they need. If a test is ordered, that test should be entered as is by the doctor and not need any additional interpretation or overhead. I don't do medical billing, but I can't imagine a reason it needs to be more complicated than that.

Specialized AI double checking radiology may have a use, but I still don't see it as a replacement as much as a second check.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io -2 points 9 hours ago (5 children)

Codes need to be complicated. Insurance is taking advantage of that (and adding more complexity), but the complexity is in the system in ways that cannot be removed. The common cholesterol test is a lot cheaper to run than a vitamin D test (20 years ago I found online the price list from a lab, IIRC costs ranged from $0.80 to $15,000 - I can't find anything current and my memory might be off a bit, but close enough for discussion), so there needs to be a different code for each test just to ensure the right bill is made. Insurance just uses those codes to decide which they will pay for.

I do not want my insurance to pay for homeopathy or other scams. That just raises my rates and ensures a worse outcome for everyone. So the system of different codes for everything is overall good. There are a lot of debate on how much money we should spend on someone who will die "soon", some would call giving them a quick poison the most humane thing to do - there is plenty of room to disagree on what should or should not be allowed and insurance is just taking a position that not everyone agrees with.

The real problem in my opinion is nobody has a choice about what insurance they have, and so we are all yelling we want something "better" without needing to care about the trade offs.

[–] Akh@lemmy.world 8 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Insurance… that is the issue.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 2 points 8 hours ago

Insurance itself is a great idea. However the implementation is all wrong.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)