论新冠肺炎大流行期间的智力测量

C. Chartier
{"title":"论新冠肺炎大流行期间的智力测量","authors":"C. Chartier","doi":"10.26443/MJM.V19I1.828","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are two commonly accepted ways to conceptualize intelligence. One involves competency in certain skills, such as problem-solving. The other, more abstract – dare I say innate – view holds that being good at a specific task is an insufficient condition for intelligence. Historically, the medical and artificial intelligence communities have grappled for position vis-à-vis these philosophies, with each side staking its claim for the more “authentic” definition of intelligence. This dispute has endured, for the most part, unresolved since the advent of artificial intelligence and its first foray into healthcare applications in the early 21st century. What is occurring when data scientists leverage massive quantities of data to replicate complex clinical decision-making, while still failing to teach a machine to correctly think about disease? This simultaneously validates imitative capacity as a metric for intelligence (machines can learn from infinite correct or incorrect diagnoses, farmore than any human physician can absorb throughout an entire career) and preserves the medical profession’s breadth of clini-","PeriodicalId":18292,"journal":{"name":"McGill Journal of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Measure of Intelligence During the COVID-19 Pandemic\",\"authors\":\"C. Chartier\",\"doi\":\"10.26443/MJM.V19I1.828\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There are two commonly accepted ways to conceptualize intelligence. One involves competency in certain skills, such as problem-solving. The other, more abstract – dare I say innate – view holds that being good at a specific task is an insufficient condition for intelligence. Historically, the medical and artificial intelligence communities have grappled for position vis-à-vis these philosophies, with each side staking its claim for the more “authentic” definition of intelligence. This dispute has endured, for the most part, unresolved since the advent of artificial intelligence and its first foray into healthcare applications in the early 21st century. What is occurring when data scientists leverage massive quantities of data to replicate complex clinical decision-making, while still failing to teach a machine to correctly think about disease? This simultaneously validates imitative capacity as a metric for intelligence (machines can learn from infinite correct or incorrect diagnoses, farmore than any human physician can absorb throughout an entire career) and preserves the medical profession’s breadth of clini-\",\"PeriodicalId\":18292,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"McGill Journal of Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"McGill Journal of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26443/MJM.V19I1.828\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"McGill Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26443/MJM.V19I1.828","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有两种公认的方式来概念化智力。一个涉及某些技能的能力,例如解决问题的能力。另一种更抽象的观点——我敢说是天生的——认为擅长某项特定任务是智力的不足条件。从历史上看,医学界和人工智能界一直在努力争取与这些哲学相对的地位,双方都声称自己对智能的定义更“真实”。自21世纪初人工智能出现并首次涉足医疗保健应用以来,这场争端在很大程度上一直没有得到解决。当数据科学家利用大量数据来复制复杂的临床决策,而仍然未能教会机器正确思考疾病时,会发生什么?这同时验证了模仿能力作为智力的衡量标准(机器可以从无限的正确或不正确诊断中学习,远远超过任何人类医生在整个职业生涯中所能吸收的),并保留了医学专业的临床广度-
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On the Measure of Intelligence During the COVID-19 Pandemic
There are two commonly accepted ways to conceptualize intelligence. One involves competency in certain skills, such as problem-solving. The other, more abstract – dare I say innate – view holds that being good at a specific task is an insufficient condition for intelligence. Historically, the medical and artificial intelligence communities have grappled for position vis-à-vis these philosophies, with each side staking its claim for the more “authentic” definition of intelligence. This dispute has endured, for the most part, unresolved since the advent of artificial intelligence and its first foray into healthcare applications in the early 21st century. What is occurring when data scientists leverage massive quantities of data to replicate complex clinical decision-making, while still failing to teach a machine to correctly think about disease? This simultaneously validates imitative capacity as a metric for intelligence (machines can learn from infinite correct or incorrect diagnoses, farmore than any human physician can absorb throughout an entire career) and preserves the medical profession’s breadth of clini-
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Healthy Brains Healthy Lives 2024 Symposium Ontario Student Medical Education Research Conference (OSMERC) 2024 Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a call for change in reporting practices Advance Care Directives: A Herzl Clinic Quality Improvement Project on Patients' perspectives Children’s health-related experiences in India: A scoping review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1