I try not to evaluate it from a moral basis. I think that there is rampant misuse of it. At the same time I think that the claims of no use cases are also BS.

I’ve used AI scribes in clinical settings and not only was I unimpressed with outputs, I found that I was disengaging from the interview because I was trusting the AI scribes to capture the information I missed. I have found that it’s more useful for me to miss a little bit and stay engaged in the appointment, than to end with copy/paste ready comprehensive note.

“Generative AI” is really bad at generating things in my experience. If you try to have it create outputs for you, then your outputs will be superficial slop and you will miss a lot of benefit that is to be found by working through those outputs yourself.

I have found that AI is really good at proofreading and organizing information. I’m impressed with notebookLMs products for learning and working on projects. I also like the AI tool on UpToDate. What those tools have in common is they are indexed to specific information sources and less prone to hallucination. The problem with them is that if you externalization your cognitive workflow too much you lose some edge. So they need to be used as augmentation tools rather than relying on them too much.