Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high

worksinprogress.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 486 posts

Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high

#291

Post by captainkrtek »

CSSer wrote: post #284
kbos87 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like saying that self-driving cars won't ever become a thing because someone behind the wheel needs to be to blame. The article cites AI systems that the FDA already has cleared to operate without a physicians' validation.

I'm curious how many people would want a second opinion (from a human) if they're presented with a bad discovery from a radiological exam and are then told it was fully automated. I have to admit if my life were on the line I might be that Karen.

Id be more concerned about the false negative. My report says nothing found? Sounds great, do I bother getting a 2nd opinion?

Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high

#292

Post by fragmede »

sarchertech wrote: post #156
dyauspitr wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo has worked out. I’ve taken one so many times now I don’t even think about it. If Waymo can pull this off in NYC I believe it will absolutely be capable of long distance trucking not that far in the future.

Trucks are orders of magnitude more dangerous. I wouldn’t be surprised if Waymo is decades away from being able to operate a long haul truck on the open interstate.

Given that Aurora Innovation is running driverless semi-trucks on commercial routes between Dallas, Houston, and Texas as of right now, that would be surprising, yes, but for different reasons.

Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high

#294

Post by varenc »

tw04 wrote: post #288
kbos87 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like saying that self-driving cars won't ever become a thing because someone behind the wheel needs to be to blame. The article cites AI systems that the FDA already has cleared to operate without a physicians' validation.

> This is like saying that self-driving cars won't ever become a thing because someone behind the wheel needs to be to blame. Which is literally the case so far. No manufacturer has shown any willingness to take on the liability of self driving at any scale to date. Waymo has what? 700 cars on the road with the finances and lawyers of Google backing it. Let me know when the bean counters sign off on fleets in the mil…

> Waymo has what? 700 cars on the road ...

They have over 2000 on the road and are growing: https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/31/techcrunch-mobility-a-new-...

Of course there's 200M+ personal vehicles registered in the US.

Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high

#295

Post by murukesh_s »

dkarl wrote: post #279
spongebobstoes wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having paid $300 for a 10 minute doctor visit, in which I was confidently diagnosed incorrectly, it will not take much for me to minimize my doctor visits and take care into my own hands whenever possible. I will benefit from medical AI. There will soon come a point where I will pay a premium for my medical care to be reviewed by an AI, not the other way around.

You might pay for a great AI diagnosis, but what matters is the diagnosis recognized by whoever pays for care. If you depend on insurance to pay for care, you're at the mercy of whatever AI they recognize. If you depend on a socialized medical care plan, you're at the mercy of whatever AI is approved by them. Paying for AI diagnosis on your own will only be helpful if you can shoulder the costs of treatment on your o…

At least you can dodge false diagnosis which is important especially when it can cause irreversible damage to your body

Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high

#296

Post by bsder »

captainkrtek wrote: post #196
bsder wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Waymos still suffer from erratic behavior at pickup/dropoff, around pedestrians, badly marked roads and generally jam on the brakes at the first sign of any ambiguity. As do most of the ridesharing drivers I interact with nowadays, sadly. The difference is that Waymo has a trajectory that is getting better while human rideshare drivers have a trajectory that is getting worse.

Society accepts that humans make mistakes and considers it unavoidable, but there exists a much higher bar expected of computers/automation/etc. even if a waymo is objectively safer in terms of incidents per miles driven, one fatality makes headlines and adds scrutiny about “was it avoidable?”, whereas humans we just shrug. I think the theme of this extends to all areas where we are placing technology to make decisio…

> Society accepts that humans make mistakes and considers it unavoidable, but there exists a much higher bar expected of computers/automation/etc.

There are a horde of bicyclists and pedestrians who disagree with you and are hoping that automated cars take over because humans are so terrible.

There are a horde of insurance companies who disagree with you and are waiting to throw money to prove their point.

When automated driving gets objectively better than humans, there will be a bunch of groups who actively benefit and will help push it forward.

Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high

#297

Post by [deleted] »

dkarl wrote: post #279
spongebobstoes wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having paid $300 for a 10 minute doctor visit, in which I was confidently diagnosed incorrectly, it will not take much for me to minimize my doctor visits and take care into my own hands whenever possible. I will benefit from medical AI. There will soon come a point where I will pay a premium for my medical care to be reviewed by an AI, not the other way around.

You might pay for a great AI diagnosis, but what matters is the diagnosis recognized by whoever pays for care. If you depend on insurance to pay for care, you're at the mercy of whatever AI they recognize. If you depend on a socialized medical care plan, you're at the mercy of whatever AI is approved by them. Paying for AI diagnosis on your own will only be helpful if you can shoulder the costs of treatment on your o…

[deleted]

Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high

#298

Post by robotresearcher »

GoatInGrey wrote: post #77
nenenejej wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radiologists can retrain to do something else adjacent surely? Not like they'll suddenly be like an 18 year old with no degree trying to find a job.

Why do we assume that radiologists would have literally 0% involvement in the radiology workflow? I could see the assumption that one radiologist supervises a group of automated radiology machines (like a worker in an automated factory). Maybe assume that they'd be delegated to an auditing role. But that they'd go completely extinct? There's no evidence of, even historically, a service being consumed that has zero hu…

Alarm clocks. Elevators. ATMs. Laundry. Chess opponent. Watching a movie. …

Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high

#299

Post by jayknight »

captainkrtek wrote: post #291
CSSer wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious how many people would want a second opinion (from a human) if they're presented with a bad discovery from a radiological exam and are then told it was fully automated. I have to admit if my life were on the line I might be that Karen.

Id be more concerned about the false negative. My report says nothing found? Sounds great, do I bother getting a 2nd opinion?

You pay extra for a doctor's opinion. Probably not covered by insurance.

Re: Demand for human radiologists is at an all-time high

#300

Post by Forgeties79 »

hattmall wrote: post #287
Forgeties79 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we were serious about reducing healthcare cost by optimization then we would be banning private equity from acquiring hospitals.

What is there to indicate "we" or anyone is serious about reducing healthcare costs? The only thing that will reduce costs is competitive pressure. The last major healthcare reform in the US was incredibly anti-competitive and designed with a goal of significantly raising costs but transferring those costs to the government. How could healthcare costs ever go down when the ONLY way for insurers to increase profits is…

> What is there to indicate "we" or anyone is serious about reducing healthcare costs?

I agree, we clearly aren’t. That’s my point.

Post reply on HN