Hacker News Reader

Comment by djaboss | Hacker News Reader

> Even if you’re paying a gazillion dollars for IVF treatments, you still only get a few precious moments to talk to your doctor every visit. That’s just how the US medical system works. If you want to plumb the depths of what treatments are possible, or ask super detailed and anxiety ridden questions about every single scan from the latest round of imaging, you’re going to want a chatbot by your side.

Ehm, no. I want doctors by my side working in a system that is not meant to be producing gains for the rich investors but to help the sick and sad.

Just imagine what could be done with all those billions poured into datacenters and GPUs, if they were invested in public goods like a decent health system!

View on HN

Sure, that is what we want, but I am not sure what you expected OP to do? Put his life on hold, skip trying for a baby, and dedicate his life to trying to change a system that people have been fighting to change unsuccessfully for decades?

OP is playing the cards he has been dealt, not wishing that he was playing a completely different game.

I'm not expecting OP to do anything else, but in

> I think there is a whole lot to be worried about with AI development, and I think we should do much more to make it safe. I also think it shouldn’t be lost how it’s helping out regular people in ways that are far more profound than generating trivia questions for drunk people.

I'm seeing a plea of "AI is really helpful, don't take it away", which might be true in a specific case but is supporting AI in general, and I got the feeling that is what OP wanted with their post. In my opinion, most of the money, energy, water and whatever else is getting invested in AI might be better invested elsewhere, with less damage to society and the environment and still the same nice outcomes.

You're complaint is that he's in favor of considering both pros and cons of things, rather than just the cons?

A health system is not a public good, access to a physician is both rivalrous (a doctor can’t see two patients at once without degrading care) and excludable. A public good, by definition, is neither rivalrous nor excludable. That’s not to say that the government shouldn’t provide private goods to citizens, but the term public provision or common welfare would be more appropriate to describe what the government is doing in those cases

Agreed, thanks for the clarification.

They would do almost nothing. Money spent on ai is small in comparison to us annual Healthcare spending.

About $310B+ has been invested in OpenAI and Anthropic represents their total venture funding over their entire corporate histories.

The majority of doctor's offices and hospitals are already nonprofit. Many of them are state-run.

By contrast, the U.S. spends $14 Billion to $15 Billion every single day on healthcare, around 5 trillion per year.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com