A.I. vs. M.D.
newyorker.com
A.I. vs. M.D.
1–10 of 44 posts
Re: A.I. vs. M.D.
#2Previous discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13976357
Re: A.I. vs. M.D.
#3I read the book Complications by Atul Gawande a while back and it touched on this issue. He mentioned how a computer was more accurate at detecting heart attacks than an experience doctor. He also talked about how if the computer is better than the doctor at reading things like these, it really doesn't make much sense for the doctor to have to evaluate/approve the results. Kind of reminds me of James Simons' thought process on quantitative trading at RenTech.
Sorry about the lack of technical knowledge into the CS stuff, first post here and I haven't really put in the time to learn about CS and AI yet.
Re: A.I. vs. M.D.
#4A few decades from now, 30 - 50 years at most, doctors and patients, will look back at us and wonder, why we were not using algorithms to assist with diagnosis already.
Re: A.I. vs. M.D.
#5A few decades from now, 30 - 50 years at most, doctors and patients, will look back at us and wonder, why we were not using algorithms to assist with diagnosis already.
As with many things - fear that the AI will be wrong (no matter how less frequently this happens than with doctors) and a desire for a human to blame if there is a mistake. If a doctor makes a misdiagnosis and kills the patient as a result it is less bad than if an AI makes a misdiagnosis and kills the patient as a result. It's the one thing I don't understand about most of society.
Same with self driving cars. Self driving cars could be proven to be 100,000% safer than human drivers - but until it is legally mandated people will prefer humans behind the wheel because "what if the self driving car runs a red light and kills someone?" ignoring the hundreds and thousands of humans who run red lights and kill people.
>why we were not using algorithms to assist with diagnosis already.
On the bright side - we increasingly are! I think it's more an issue with budgeting and legal issues that it isn't as widespread.
Re: A.I. vs. M.D.
#6I like to read this as M.D. rejects tools. Which is pretty stupid, but wasn't Crichton writing about expert systems in Andromeda Strain back in the 1960s?
That they didn't make an inch of progress in 50 years shows the influence of The Guild.
Re: A.I. vs. M.D.
#7A few decades from now, 30 - 50 years at most, doctors and patients, will look back at us and wonder, why we were not using algorithms to assist with diagnosis already.
As with many things - fear that the AI will be wrong (no matter how less frequently this happens than with doctors) and a desire for a human to blame if there is a mistake. If a doctor makes a misdiagnosis and kills the patient as a result it is less bad than if an AI makes a misdiagnosis and kills the patient as a result. It's the one thing I don't understand about most of society. Same with self driving cars. Self…
With medical issues, I'd expect there would be a point at which computers are so much more accurate that humans wouldn't be able to tell.
An analogy is instant replay in football. There are some plays that are just so close, that they can't overrule the field judge - and wouldn't be able to even if the field judge made the opposite ruling!
That being said, you're betting on humans to be irrational, and that is always a good bet unfortunately.
Re: A.I. vs. M.D.
#8A few decades from now, 30 - 50 years at most, doctors and patients, will look back at us and wonder, why we were not using algorithms to assist with diagnosis already.
As with many things - fear that the AI will be wrong (no matter how less frequently this happens than with doctors) and a desire for a human to blame if there is a mistake. If a doctor makes a misdiagnosis and kills the patient as a result it is less bad than if an AI makes a misdiagnosis and kills the patient as a result. It's the one thing I don't understand about most of society. Same with self driving cars. Self…
I believe you're right about the blame issues. I came here to post about that.
One other wrinkle... Having an algorithm strictly following rules and procedures to the T means that we're taking moral/human decision making out of the mix. This matters in situations where two different diagnoses may have the same treatment, but different outcomes on the patient's livelihood aside from their health. E.g., a human doctor may note that a tumor is just big enough to be considered cancerous, but marks it down as "pre-cancerous" in their official diagnosis. The treatment is still the same, but it keeps the more serious diagnosis off the patient's record, which can help them when dealing with insurance.
One follow-up argument to this may be that humans would have the final say in a given diagnosis, but I bet this wouldn't always be the case, particularly in lower income scenarios.
The final question to me is if the risk of the loss of moral agency outweighs the risk for incorrect diagnosis. I think there's going to be variance in the machine/human accuracy rates, and the need for a deeper understanding of the human condition.
Re: A.I. vs. M.D.
#9A few decades from now, 30 - 50 years at most, doctors and patients, will look back at us and wonder, why we were not using algorithms to assist with diagnosis already.
If you take surgeons, they are trained for one thing. I know a bariatric surgeon who is an expert in medical weight loss but he could not define the word ketogenic. He told me I was foolish for going on a high fat diet (despite the fact that he's overweight).
Also my oncologist didn't know if some vitamins could actually help my cancer and he was skeptical that my diet could effect my IGF1 levels. He couldn't tell me how I got cancer and couldn't tell me any way to prevent it.
It makes me think there's a future potential problem of Establishment AIs vs contrarian AIs? How would it determine what is best with contradictory information?
Re: A.I. vs. M.D.
#10Hopefully more companies are doing this.
My research thesis is in this area, hoping for a nice career doing modelling to predict illness. I'd like to have a nice paying job doing something that actually help people instead of just only making somebody more richer.
Also it doesn't matter if the AI gets wrong, the algorithm gives say 80% accuracy and it tells you base on your genetic make up if you should take the surgery route or chemotherapy route.
1. It's to assist the doctor. Also perhaps it can be cheaper to diagnose than a doctor. If say the algorithm says with 80% chance you have cancer, then you should go to your doctor and have it check. If it says no, then don't go. You have another tool to evaluate your health keeping in mind that it's a tool and aid, not a replacement for doctor.
The only concerns are genetic discrimination which GINA law addresses. And medical algorithm usually err on the side of false positive. So it rather get it wrong in saying you have cancer than saying you don't have cancer and in reality you do.
Any body know of any companies that does this please send them my way. ^__^