• errer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    Sounds like the nurses who were laid off were doing a lot of “backend” stuff (talking to insurance, data entry, etc). If the AI was coming in and doing those jobs, freeing up the nurses to work more directly with patients, I could see a good argument for it. But no, they had to let the nurses go, which is just greedy and stupid as fuck given the nursing shortage.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I still wouldn’t trust AI to do that stuff. That’s how you end up killing and maiming patients.

      “You’re absolutely correct, that patient was allergic to penicillin.”

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 day ago

      Sounds more like the nurses were fired in retaliation for participating in a strike led by their union and the hospital is trying to make it seem like they did it because AI made their jobs irrelevant.

      From what I read it looked like the nurses mainly worked in patient discharge, which isn’t really a job that AI could realistically do. Half the time there isn’t really a lot of information that would be accessible, a lot of the info would be entered after discharge when the attending provider is doing their notes.

    • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 day ago

      As the nurses regularly have mentioned, even if they were kept on doing patient stuff, you still don’t want AI making healthcare decisions or in charge of healthcare documents.

    • Zarobi@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yesss… we could hire more nurses with the time and money savings of A.I., but instead let’s just fire them and make more money. Doesn’t this kind of prove that the nursing shortage is manufactured? They had the option here to help improve the situation but deliberately chose profits every time

      • Polisheocket@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        22 hours ago

        We need to keep people employed, firing all these people that do “back end” work is still taking jobs away. How far can it go?

        • Zarobi@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          I don’t get your point. There was like 8 things in my comment, which ones were not mutually exclusive?

            • Zarobi@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              Ok, so one question equals two things being mutually exclusive? This has to be the laziest attempt to start an argument I’ve seen on Lemmy so far

              • Photonic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                24 hours ago

                You’ve got to be a troll…. This is completely obvious, but in the rare case you’re really not trolling:

                Thing 1:

                we could hire more nurses with the time and money savings of A.I.

                Thing 2:

                instead let’s just fire them and make more money.

                Question:

                Doesn’t this kind of prove that the nursing shortage is manufactured?

                Answer: (no), those two things are not mutually exclusive.

                • Zarobi@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  16 hours ago

                  It’s really not obvious, and I still don’t fully understand what you’re actually trying to say. My comment was pointing out that it’s unlikely they’ll use those freed resources to hire more nurses, in response to other comments pointing out the nursing crisis. I’m guessing you disagree with me, and are expressing it in a roundabout way.

                  Of course everyone who disagrees with you is automatically a troll.

                  🧌

                  • Photonic@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    14 hours ago

                    That’s a bit of a you problem.

                    But: a nursing shortage is when there are not enough nurses for the number of sick and needy patients. In other words, hospitals and care facilities throughout the US can’t find enough nursing staff to fill out the positions that they need given the amount of patients that they have, i.e. a nursing shortage.

                    Saving money with AI and being able to hire more nurses but taking the stupid decision to fire them, doesn’t mean the nursing shortage is manufactured, like you posed. The nursing shortage is still, in fact, very real and a problem of an aging population and not enough people getting into nursing.

                    Execs being greedy does not prove the shortage isn’t there.

                    And maybe you will find that sealioning and calling people lazy earns you the title of troll more often. So maybe if you don’t want that try to avoid such behaviour.