Are you confident that the American healthcare system wouldn’t declare experts to be a redundancy and simply replace them with the AI? Not only would that fit with their well-known profit motive, it is explicitly what AI companies claim they want to do.
I would love to live in a utopia where AI can be used ethically, but it is dangerous to promote the assumption that it magically just will be.
Are you confident that the American healthcare system wouldn’t declare experts to be a redundancy and simply replace them with the AI?
Yes.
Nothing about this tool replaces experts any more than a calculator or computer can replace a human mathematician.
I would love to live in a utopia where AI can be used ethically, but it is dangerous to promote the assumption that it magically just will be.
I don’t assume that AI will always be used ethically (see: War, LLM propaganda bots, etc). Like every technology it is possible to do bad things with it and it will require regulations and laws addressing this.
Dismissing a technology because it is used by bad people, if you actually applied that standard consistently in your life, would have you living naked in a cave without access to fire or tools.
You don’t need to believe in a utopia to understand that a world where 70% of pancreatic cancer is detected 3 years earlier is better than one where 30% of pancreatic cancer is detected 3 years earlier.
FauxLiving, I appreciate your guarantees about the future, but can you demonstrate why the for-profit medical and AI industries wouldn’t cut corners if the AI behaved the way you hope it will?
FauxLiving, a paper isn’t the same as you predicting the future. It does not show the system works. It is disgusting that you pretend to be an astrologer based on these opinions.
Are you confident that the American healthcare system wouldn’t declare experts to be a redundancy and simply replace them with the AI?
That would lead to a legal liability. The reality is all radiology scans and pathology slide images are cross checked by software and if there is a discrepancy, another pathologist is consulted. This is because the error rate of pathologists and radiologists is conservatively 1% which is far too high.
Are you confident that the American healthcare system wouldn’t declare experts to be a redundancy and simply replace them with the AI? Not only would that fit with their well-known profit motive, it is explicitly what AI companies claim they want to do.
I would love to live in a utopia where AI can be used ethically, but it is dangerous to promote the assumption that it magically just will be.
Yes.
Nothing about this tool replaces experts any more than a calculator or computer can replace a human mathematician.
I don’t assume that AI will always be used ethically (see: War, LLM propaganda bots, etc). Like every technology it is possible to do bad things with it and it will require regulations and laws addressing this.
Dismissing a technology because it is used by bad people, if you actually applied that standard consistently in your life, would have you living naked in a cave without access to fire or tools.
You don’t need to believe in a utopia to understand that a world where 70% of pancreatic cancer is detected 3 years earlier is better than one where 30% of pancreatic cancer is detected 3 years earlier.
FauxLiving, I appreciate your guarantees about the future, but can you demonstrate why the for-profit medical and AI industries wouldn’t cut corners if the AI behaved the way you hope it will?
First, this is a peer-reviewed result not me expressing my hopes.
Second, this application does not replace radiologists. It is a tool for radiologists in one specific type of diagnosis.
If you have some hypothetical future outcome in mind, then the burden of proof is on you to prove your position, not on me to disprove it.
The data shows that this system works.
FauxLiving, a paper isn’t the same as you predicting the future. It does not show the system works. It is disgusting that you pretend to be an astrologer based on these opinions.
That would lead to a legal liability. The reality is all radiology scans and pathology slide images are cross checked by software and if there is a discrepancy, another pathologist is consulted. This is because the error rate of pathologists and radiologists is conservatively 1% which is far too high.
deleted by creator