undefined | Better HN

0 pointsSkiFire131mo ago0 comments

> we must assume that the best AI models (especially ones focusing solely in the medical field) would largely beat large majority of humans (aka doctors), if we already have this assumption for software engineers

You first have to assume this for software engineers. Not everyone agree with that (note: that doesn't mean the same people don't agree that AI is not _useful_).

AIs still have a ton of issues that would be devastating in a doctor. Remember all the AIs mistakingly deleting production DBs? Now imagine they prescribed a medicine cocktail that killed the patient instead. No thanks. There's a totally different bar to the consequences of mistakes.

0 comments

7 comments · 3 top-level

ErrantX1mo ago· 3 in thread

Doctors make errors all the time though, so the real argument is about the error percentage. If AIs is lower then it's safer (but it's hard to have that convo, I recognise).

Besides; this article was about diagnosis not prescribing. It's pretty obvious, I think, that diagnosis is one area where AI will perform extremely well in the long run.

I think there are two metrics; the first is outright misdiagnosis, which studies put between 5 and 8% in US/Europe. That's a meaningful number to tackle.

Secondly; overdiagnosis. Where a Dr says on balance it could be X on a difficult to diagnose but dangerous problem (usually cancer). The impact of overdiagnosis is significant in terms of resources, mental health, cost etc.

kuboble1mo ago

The bar for making ai useful is much lower though. It's enough to be better than nothing.

Large populations also in the technically rich countries simply do not have access to a doctor.

in Poland which has a free public Healthcare it takes literal years to get a single appointment sometimes.

darkwater1mo ago

Do you believe the issue is because they don't have enough technicians to diagnose or because they don't have enough x-ray machines? Or in a ER environment, how an AI would speed up things in a real way that improves patients' lives?

We just minted the term "cognitive debt" for software engineers that cannot keep up with what the AI spits out. How would that apply to ER doctors, or any other kind of doctor?

1 more reply

ErrantX1mo ago

I agree with you, but seperate point in many respects - the conversation was about replacing existing robust medical infrastructure.

I fully agree that AI could extend access; but to build on what others have said too, lack of physical diagnostics is an issue as is the lack of physical tech infrastructure.

dolkycape1mo ago· 1 in thread

Doctors do that all the time though. That's why drugs are dispensed by a pharmacist who double checks it.

collabs1mo ago

I don't think this is a fight doctors can win. We programmers make mistakes all the time.

At one place, we had a QA lead who was burned so many times she would insist that she will find the time to do at least a full smoke test even if we promised it was a small contained change in the frontend. I have no idea how she found the time because she wore multiple hats.

inglor_cz1mo ago

In some subfields, like detection of security weaknesses in obscure C code, AI is already better than software engineers.

It is capable of sifting through enormous reams of data without ever zoning out etc. Once patients routinely use various wearables etc., they, too, will produce heaps of data to be analyzed, and AI will be the thing to go to when it comes to anomaly detection.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse