Or maybe over-confident arrogant CS majors aren't experts on every other irrelevant subdomain and it's not some absurd absence of meritocracy/bad gatekeepers from preventing them from ruining other fields by letting them rely on everything?
Good faith is difficult to assume. I do agree that the real world is much more complex than simply which tool works better.
An analogy could be jury-based courts in the US. The reason for having juries and many of the rules are not really evidence-based. It's well known that juries can be biased in endless ways and are very easy to manipulate. Their main purpose though is not to make objectively correct decisions. The purpose is giving legitimacy to a consensus. Similarly, giving diagnosis-power to human doctors is not a question of accuracy. It's a question of acceptability/blame/status.
Nobody, and I mean nobody beats physicians at the Arrogance game.
The very second that ML models begin to consistently beat humans at diagnostics, it would be a moral imperative, as well as an absolute requirement by the terms of the Hippocratic Oath, to replace the humans.
Why is HN so brainrot shit at times man wtf. And you're just proving that you're exactly the type of arrogant techbro I was talking about.