Code generation and medical result generation are similar enough to compare (I think), but to expound on the point I was making to the other person I replied to: There is far less medical data online than there is code. We basically have every code textbook online. We have tons of examples to create scaffolds from. We don’t have so much medical data, and the people promoting the tools to the medical field tend to be the tech bros who don’t mention the caveats of what their products can do.

In other words, if AI could be good in medicine, it needs to be rolled out by none of the people who are currently pushing for it, and the caveats need to be explained in a way that none of them do. (It’s not objective, it will not create new science like OpenAI CEO Sam Alman says, etc.) If AI boosters managed to convince the medical field of the same things, they have already convinced politicians and journalists of, I think the result would be rapid quality degradation of treatment, deskilling, lots of unnecessary death. And boosters that promote potential benefits without acknowledging that are being very reckless.