• OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    If they can take away drudge work that hospitals force nurses to do and let human nurses do more in-person work (AI can not deliver a baby, for example), good, right?

    Assuming they only put the AI on tasks where the AI is as good as a human or better because they will get sued if it makes a mistake, then this is just the same health care for cheaper to me. That’s good. We need cheaper healthcare.

    • Lmaydev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Hippocratic promotes how it can undercut real human nurses, who can cost $90 an hour, with its cheap AI agents that offer medical advice to patients over video calls in real-time.

      Kind of.

        • scoobford@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          No, they cost $90/hour. They’re probably factoring in the assumed cost of benefits and management salaries.

          Oh, hell this is the healthcare industry. That’s probably just what they charge before insurance companies get their discounts.

    • CaptainProton@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      You know some hospital system will be out there hiring brainless diaper changers to replace RNs, and have a limited number of real nurses who will be very over worked.

    • ahal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      In theory it could be a good thing. In practice hospitals will lay off a bunch of nurses to save cost, the system will be just as overloaded as ever, except now you talk to cold unfeeling machines instead.