Took me to a site once, where a person would write out what they're dealing with, and a random other person would send them an existing song. I assume it was all anonymous.
Like this one person posted about dealing with a horrible aunt, and I sent back Jonathan Coulton's "Someone is Crazy"
One of my doctors has an assistant nurse (or whatever they're called in the hierarchy) take notes just so the conversation can be more fluid. She always asks my permission for if that's okay with me.
My other doctor types and reads out her notes with me towards the end of my visit to make sure she hasn't missed anything, and she makes me feel heard and involved.
No, I wouldn't consent. Sending my PHI to a third party is unnecessary, and AI data centers are a net negative on the planet. I also wouldn't trust that the Ai service provider isn't helping themselves to your data + doctor's feedback to use for further training anyway. Thank god healthcare providers are required to ask before shunting your info off to some third party.
But, if presented with this, I'd talk to my doctor about the extent that third-party AI-services are already being used in my own healthcare. If I can fully opt out, I'd stay. If I didn't have a real choice to opt out, and if it were easy to find a new doctor that didn't use Ai-services, l'd fuck off so fast, like bye felicia, I ain't dealing with this palantir-esque bullshit just for getting a rx refill
Sometimes future me has the memory of a goldfish, and I fear that, for future me, the online sources that guided me before won't be there for me anymore
Even before adding community plugins, the search, organization, and the ability to easily link to other documents/screenshots make documentation so easy for me
Some might be upvoting this in cheeky irony, but I see this as a modest proposal.
This position deserves a longer form article & widespread publication, and numerous calculations & studies detailing how much more ethically beneficial this would be for society. Would it not be more efficient to curb idiocy among the masses by regulating people's choices in population control than conducting intimate mass government surveillance? Would it not be a higher ethical stance to give people the illusion of choice by making them work for the privilege of birthing, maintenance, and management of another human being?
Counterpoint: it is cheaper and cost-effective to dehumanize and control the masses with the technical advances we have today , and-also, to hell with ethics. Think about it. If car manufacturers would be made responsible for designing cars to identify bad actors, we wouldn't have to deal with the inevitable consequences of people who gain their driving licenses but bend the rules anyway. We could do with discarding licensing altogether because it's not perfect. Only by singling out and reprimanding each person for their faults with the conviction of a Walmart micromanager and the ruthless efficiency of Palantir surveillance - can we create a more perfect bubble of safety for society.
(I don't have time to even pretend to cough up statistics, k thx bye)
This hurt my whole face, I cringed so hard. Not that it's second-hand embarrassing, but it pains my soul that I don't think this is an impossible future
Toy story 5 might add enough characters to subsist on for a while