you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 5 months ago* (16 children)

Not really. Workers are left taking the blame for forced implementation from the executive level. They save the costs and work staff harder... But when it fucks up then the workers can take the blame. Responsibility for this needs to sit higher up with those who forced faulty tools on everyone. AI is being forced into the NHS against all protests and objections.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Does the "following orders" defense work sometimes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 30 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Then they have an obligation to fight back. Or they can lose their job because they blindly followed AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    And resistance can only be collective. Another reason unionisation is as important as it's ever been.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    I thought the NHS had a pretty good union, no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    It is but creeping privatisation may change that, as does legislation becoming more hostile to unionisation since the 1980s.

    The broader point is that individuals can try all they want to preserve their privacy, but then friends, family and organisations spy on them, often unwittingly, eg when we share with them calendar events or email messages. The only way forward is collective resistance, building alliances and influencing public policy. But it's always been like that with systemic issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Doctors are not like developers. The heads of organizations treat them differently, because their job prospects are better. If they say no, it's a no.

    Ref: Trying to get doctors in hospital systems to use life-saving notifications for years.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

    I can understand this to some degree, but I largely disagree.

    AI is a tool. The user of the tool should be the one that carries responsibility. I don't have the stats, but I imagine that most jobs that relied on hand tools suffered more injury when power tools were introduced, but again, it's up to the person using the tool to use it responsibly.

    Granted, thats not a perfect analogy because AI definitely doesn't present the same marked improvements as power tools, but the responsibility of the user doesn't change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    The power tools are faulty, and they're being forced to use them. You're assuming the people using the AI have the power to reject what the AI says. I'm not sure that's true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Now that they're personally liable for what it outputs, they definitely can. Your boss can't force you to break the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    I love how the AI booster narrative for using it shifted so quickly from "buh it it will make medicine better!" to "it's the doctor's fault when it fails!"

    Or maybe that's the point. Heap unwarranted praise at the feet of the AI corpos, shift all externalities and blame onto the victims.

  • source
  • parent