This is why you should never allow the use of the marketing term "AI", and instead always refer to the specific technologies.

The use case for the term "AI" is to conflate things that work (ML) with things that don't work (LLMs).

I'd be very wary about the first use case. I've read some days ago that automation bias will seriously fuck with a radiologist's ability to make the correct decision. Relevant bit:

When the AI provided an incorrect result, researchers found inexperienced and moderately experienced radiologists dropped their cancer-detecting accuracy from around 80% to about 22%. Very experienced radiologists’ accuracy dropped from nearly 80% to 45%.

this is something I've been mulling over for a while now too. there are lots of little boring ways in which some of the ML stuff definitely does work, but none of them are in the shape of anything the hypemen have been shouting. and afaict none of them will be able to justify all the investment either (and only some will be able to justify the compute, even then)

couple months back I speculated in one of the threads here that I believe one of the reasons there's such a hard push to get the llms and shit into as much as possible now is because it'll be harder to remove after the air starts going on - and thus allow to buy more time/runway/rent-extraction