Also, if the outcome is worse by informing, doesn't that imply a violation of "first, do no harm"? Which, to be fair, the OP says they wouldn't prioritize...
Depends on how you interpret: "First do no harm". Is that an obligation to minimize the harm to an individual patient? Or is the goal to maximize the health of many patients? Like I've said elsewhere, medical reasoning is subtle.
A lot of that funding in the US goes to pay teachers money they then use to pay for health insurance -- which in other countries is often provided by the tax base at large and not counted as an education expense.
By policy changes giving unions less power, enacted by politicians that were mostly voted for by a majority, which is mostly composed of the working class. Was this people voting against their interests? (Almost literally yes, but you could argue that their ideological preference for weaker unions trumps their economic interest in stronger unions.)
Thinking that a text completion algorithm is your friend, or can be your friend, indicates some detachment from reality (or some truly extraordinary capability of the algorithm?). People don't have that reaction with other algorithms.
Maybe what we're really debating here isn't whether it's psychosis on the part of the human, it's whether there is something "there" on the part of the computer.
