This is an interesting argument from IEEE blog post. I am not sure if the idea is more of an opinion of the engineering body or a plant by the clever PR machinery from IBM.
They have framed the issue quite well though:
A key focus is getting AI to “speak” code. The market demand for AI communicating in code is immense. According to Gartner, AI augmentation will recover 6.2 billion hours of worker productivity in 2021. Teaching AI code could streamline and automate many of the IT processes that currently require time-consuming manual oversight and troubleshooting, such as security, system management, and multiple cloud environments.
I won’t bother you with more engineering specifics but here’s something that their chief scientist has to say about the healthcare:
The use of AI in healthcare is still evolving, and it’s a journey. To expect AI to be able to give the right answer in all diagnosis scenarios is expecting too much. The technology has not reached that level yet. However, that’s precisely why we say it’s more about augmenting the healthcare experts than it is about replacing in many ways.
So it is likely that the scientist is completely cut off from the memo that was circulating about the IBM Watson in healthcare that uses a shitty rule based interface (not even logic) to “determine” the outcomes from specific inputs.
I am not a huge fan of their endeavours and they promised too much to get some brownie points. I’d be keen to know how the university hospitals are faring after expensive acquisitions.