71–80 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From radiologist AI training datasets, evaluated long-term/post-mortem.
I hate to be “source?” about it but your numbers are so far off what every search result is showing.
Brother-in-law graduated med school in the early 90s and has been a practicing ER physician since. We discussed this recently and he related that his advisors told him not to go into radiology back in the late 80s because the assumption was that computers were going to take over the field. He's not too far away from retirement and it's only now that we're starting to see some signs of this prediction from 30+ years a…
The issue with radiologists is that on average they are able to spot ~35% of correct diagnoses, while the world's best radiologists ~45%. AI might get us to ~50% which is ~15% better than an average radiologist (who still needs to review it).
When can we start replacing CEOs with AI?
Do you think this would help? The CEO is an employee of the board of directors and the stockholders. An AI CEO would no doubt be as ruthless as a human CEO, if not more so. In other words, I wouldn't anticipate any improvement in CEO behavior.
“For women who aren’t considered high risk, if the test comes back negative, it’s wrong only about 3 times out of 10,000,” Lubarsky said.
Sounds like 3 wrongs are an acceptable level of risk for this CEO. It would be interesting to put radiologists up against AI to see which have better results, but I would still rather a human read my chart and then have AI give the second opinion, rather than the other way around.
I figured this was “CEO said a thing” journalism [1], but buried in the last paragraph is a real scorcher: > “Undeniable proof that confidently uninformed hospital administrators are a danger to patients: easily duped by AI companies that are nowhere near capable of providing patient care,” [Radiologist Dr.] Suhail told Radiology Business. “Any attempt to implement AI-only reads would immediately result in patient ha…
Well, let's not forget the conflict of interest on the other side as well, of someone having invested decades of professional experience into a very lucrative field already getting obliterated by AI in some narrow fields. Getting rid of radiologists is as much nonsense and saber rattling as suggesting using AI would harm patients. The answer is clearly just the same as in software development or any other AI impacted…
Did a chatbot tell you that? What makes you think it is so?
Brother-in-law graduated med school in the early 90s and has been a practicing ER physician since. We discussed this recently and he related that his advisors told him not to go into radiology back in the late 80s because the assumption was that computers were going to take over the field. He's not too far away from retirement and it's only now that we're starting to see some signs of this prediction from 30+ years a…
The issue with radiologists is that on average they are able to spot ~35% of correct diagnoses, while the world's best radiologists ~45%. AI might get us to ~50% which is ~15% better than an average radiologist (who still needs to review it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With a little extra irony, I’m honestly certain our HR dept could easily be replaced with AI to far better effect. They would surely disagree.
The job description should be sufficient prompt to replace the HR, add some RAG and skill files based on a few months of in-company chat tool data and paperwork, I don't see why there's still HR around. The AI HR can choose to hire entertainers etc. for some tasks but why would keep HR on payroll al the time?
Main reasons…
1. HR doesn’t work with you. They work for your CEO or Board. Consider them a toxic entity if you ever have a real problem.
2. HR is a socially accepted jobs program for people without any discernible skills, beyond basic data entry and organization. Effectively no one else wants to do it. The issue is that with point one, these people are told they are important and it immediately goes to their heads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think this would help? The CEO is an employee of the board of directors and the stockholders. An AI CEO would no doubt be as ruthless as a human CEO, if not more so. In other words, I wouldn't anticipate any improvement in CEO behavior.
If I was going to reduce labor costs by +1M/year, I would rather eliminate 1 CEO then 10 radiologists. I would much rather have 1 unemployed CEO in society than 10 unemployed radiologists. At the very least, "AI" should replace through attrition rather than direct layoffs...
This is a false dichotomy. Why not both?
I think it's a bit strange to hope or assume that an AI CEO would somehow preserve human jobs.
> Sandra Scott, MD, CEO of the One Brooklyn Health, a small hospital facing tight margins, agreed with this line of thinking, according to Crain’s. Does this CEO of a small hospital realize that their hospital will take the legal responsibility if there's no doctor to sue for malpractice?
This works in the other direction too - a human mises a cancer, that 10 out of 10 radiology models say it's there with 99% confidence. That hospital will lose in court for negligence.
I think the cases where judgements differ—either between humans or AI or both–will be the difficult to discern cases, where no human and no LLM will have 99% confidence.
He is blatantly and obviously lying likely to boost stock prices. Radiologists do physical procedures too.