AI outperforming physicians. Ban humans from practicing certain medicine?

[Anonymous]

Saw a very interesting post on LinkedIn of a study where they compared the newest version of AI versus, human alone, and human +AI assist. The gist was that AI alone was just as good as human + AI, which were both better than human alone. The point being here human input into clinical diagnostics is now not providing anything useful over AI alone.

It's only going to be a matter of time until they try to push the argument that humans should be banned from practicing medicine due to the fact that humans alone perform the worst, and are more error prone now than AI alone. If humans aren't needed for large aspects of clinical diagnostics and AI is better, why shouldn't human physicians be replaced? Are you willing to see an AI doctor only in the future when you're sick knowing that objective data are starting to show AI alone is all that's needed and better than a human doctor in terms of error rates?

We are entering an entire new era.

[Anonymous]

Many doctors have not learned or barely practice the art of hands on medicine. They rely on labs, which is something AI can do pretty well. But hands on is really needed in many contexts and often helps to avoid expensive tests.

AI can't really replicate hands on medicine; doctors need to do more of this.

[Anonymous]

Post the study, please.

[Anonymous]

Who will take on the liability?

[Anonymous]

Discussed here: https://erictopol.substack.com/p/when-doctors-with-ai-are-outperformed

The studies are small, and I think it's too early to say whether today's AI is better. But I would be surprised if there's not significant progress in the next few years.

The good scenario: Docs will learn to integrate AI into their practice, reducing busywork and improving diagnostic accuracy, leaving more time for patient interaction.

Bad scenario: They trust AI too much and become over reliant on it, not fixing its mistakes, and/or overrule AI even when it's right because they don't trust it enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many doctors have not learned or barely practice the art of hands on medicine. They rely on labs, which is something AI can do pretty well. But hands on is really needed in many contexts and often helps to avoid expensive tests.

AI can't really replicate hands on medicine; doctors need to do more of this.

What do I need hands in medicine for though for many types of issues?

Let's say I have some kind of unknown infection. I take images of the skin rash, input my symptoms into AI, along with my labs delivered electronically and AI comes up with the highest probable diagnosis and appropriate course of action/treatment. I don't really need a handson clinical, do I? AI can also keep training itself on the entire body of new research and literature available so that it can constantly update the best prescription for treatment regimens, optimal dosing for drugs, etc. while a human physician probably almost never reads any literature after med school.

Struggling here to see why we need any doctors for hands on work if AI now does it with less error rates than a human.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Post the study, please.

https://the-decoder.com/openai-says-its-latest-models-outperform-doctors-in-medical-benchmark/

They have a link to the paper there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many doctors have not learned or barely practice the art of hands on medicine. They rely on labs, which is something AI can do pretty well. But hands on is really needed in many contexts and often helps to avoid expensive tests.

AI can't really replicate hands on medicine; doctors need to do more of this.

What do I need hands in medicine for though for many types of issues?

Let's say I have some kind of unknown infection. I take images of the skin rash, input my symptoms into AI, along with my labs delivered electronically and AI comes up with the highest probable diagnosis and appropriate course of action/treatment. I don't really need a handson clinical, do I? AI can also keep training itself on the entire body of new research and literature available so that it can constantly update the best prescription for treatment regimens, optimal dosing for drugs, etc. while a human physician probably almost never reads any literature after med school.

Struggling here to see why we need any doctors for hands on work if AI now does it with less error rates than a human.

If you have a skin lesion and AI diagnoses it, who is going to remove it if that’s the recommended treatment? I assume one day a robot could do it, but I think that’s a longer way off.

What if you have symptoms that can’t be shown in a photo? If I have abdominal pain, the doctor doing an exam and putting their hands on my belly to assess for pain, feel for masses, etc is doing something that AI can’t.

I think medicine is going to change a lot, but there will be a role for doctors for a while, probably for some fields longer than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many doctors have not learned or barely practice the art of hands on medicine. They rely on labs, which is something AI can do pretty well. But hands on is really needed in many contexts and often helps to avoid expensive tests.

AI can't really replicate hands on medicine; doctors need to do more of this.

What do I need hands in medicine for though for many types of issues?

Let's say I have some kind of unknown infection. I take images of the skin rash, input my symptoms into AI, along with my labs delivered electronically and AI comes up with the highest probable diagnosis and appropriate course of action/treatment. I don't really need a handson clinical, do I? AI can also keep training itself on the entire body of new research and literature available so that it can constantly update the best prescription for treatment regimens, optimal dosing for drugs, etc. while a human physician probably almost never reads any literature after med school.

Struggling here to see why we need any doctors for hands on work if AI now does it with less error rates than a human.

If you have a skin lesion and AI diagnoses it, who is going to remove it if that’s the recommended treatment? I assume one day a robot could do it, but I think that’s a longer way off.

What if you have symptoms that can’t be shown in a photo? If I have abdominal pain, the doctor doing an exam and putting their hands on my belly to assess for pain, feel for masses, etc is doing something that AI can’t.

I think medicine is going to change a lot, but there will be a role for doctors for a while, probably for some fields longer than others.

You're missing the point.

No one is saying this is gonna replace surgery, but it will replace TONS of doctors visits for diagnosis. That's like the entirely of primary care and the bulk of speciality care. I could pay a technician $12/h to follow an AI screen of instructions telling them where to push on a patient's abdomen to get pain diagnosis. I don't need an MD for that. Then you just press on the screen where a patient reports pain. AI takes that into account in the diagnosis.

[Anonymous]

Also, radiology. Why isn't that a field that will get absolutely decimated by AI. They will just take images and have them interpreted by AI that can use image analysis and machine vision that is going to be less error probe and less biased than a radiologist. No need to pay an army of radiologists $500k salaries anymore when AI can do all of the work in 1/10th the time, with less errors, and for a fraction of the cost.

[Anonymous]

Well, the Republicans pushed through a bill banning regulation of AI for 10 years. What could possibly go wrong with AI involved in health care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many doctors have not learned or barely practice the art of hands on medicine. They rely on labs, which is something AI can do pretty well. But hands on is really needed in many contexts and often helps to avoid expensive tests.

AI can't really replicate hands on medicine; doctors need to do more of this.

What do I need hands in medicine for though for many types of issues?

Let's say I have some kind of unknown infection. I take images of the skin rash, input my symptoms into AI, along with my labs delivered electronically and AI comes up with the highest probable diagnosis and appropriate course of action/treatment. I don't really need a handson clinical, do I? AI can also keep training itself on the entire body of new research and literature available so that it can constantly update the best prescription for treatment regimens, optimal dosing for drugs, etc. while a human physician probably almost never reads any literature after med school.

Struggling here to see why we need any doctors for hands on work if AI now does it with less error rates than a human.

If you have a skin lesion and AI diagnoses it, who is going to remove it if that’s the recommended treatment? I assume one day a robot could do it, but I think that’s a longer way off.

What if you have symptoms that can’t be shown in a photo? If I have abdominal pain, the doctor doing an exam and putting their hands on my belly to assess for pain, feel for masses, etc is doing something that AI can’t.

I think medicine is going to change a lot, but there will be a role for doctors for a while, probably for some fields longer than others.

You're missing the point.

No one is saying this is gonna replace surgery, but it will replace TONS of doctors visits for diagnosis. That's like the entirely of primary care and the bulk of speciality care. I could pay a technician $12/h to follow an AI screen of instructions telling them where to push on a patient's abdomen to get pain diagnosis. I don't need an MD for that. Then you just press on the screen where a patient reports pain. AI takes that into account in the diagnosis.

People go to the doctor when they want to see a human. I've already gotten very good at triaging (reducing) my own visits to the doctor using Google, an advice book I got from Kaiser Permanente, advice phone lines with nurse practitioners etc.

Most of my care is checkups. I don't want to get a mammogram from a purely automated factory assembly line of robots squeezing me. When I say "Ow" I want a
trained tech who reviews images and adjusts the machine to be there. Can't even imagine a Pap without a person there.

Stop peddling your dystopia. I'll pay more to avoid it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, the Republicans pushed through a bill banning regulation of AI for 10 years. What could possibly go wrong with AI involved in health care?

Aren't we already sort of there though? I had to go in for a sleep study. All they did was make me watch a YouTube video, take home a recording device I had to setup on my own, and then I just returned the device that recorded the data.

I have no idea why I paid doctors fees to interpret a little bit of data that could probably be easily done by a simple program. The office employed so many people. And to do what? Hand people a box with a machine and show them where the link was for a YouTube vid?

There are so many unnecessary functions and jobs that can and probably should be automated away in healthcare. Yes, I know this is bad for employment. But honestly, what value are so many jobs providing that are driving up costs for things like HC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many doctors have not learned or barely practice the art of hands on medicine. They rely on labs, which is something AI can do pretty well. But hands on is really needed in many contexts and often helps to avoid expensive tests.

AI can't really replicate hands on medicine; doctors need to do more of this.

What do I need hands in medicine for though for many types of issues?

Let's say I have some kind of unknown infection. I take images of the skin rash, input my symptoms into AI, along with my labs delivered electronically and AI comes up with the highest probable diagnosis and appropriate course of action/treatment. I don't really need a handson clinical, do I? AI can also keep training itself on the entire body of new research and literature available so that it can constantly update the best prescription for treatment regimens, optimal dosing for drugs, etc. while a human physician probably almost never reads any literature after med school.

Struggling here to see why we need any doctors for hands on work if AI now does it with less error rates than a human.

If you have a skin lesion and AI diagnoses it, who is going to remove it if that’s the recommended treatment? I assume one day a robot could do it, but I think that’s a longer way off.

What if you have symptoms that can’t be shown in a photo? If I have abdominal pain, the doctor doing an exam and putting their hands on my belly to assess for pain, feel for masses, etc is doing something that AI can’t.

I think medicine is going to change a lot, but there will be a role for doctors for a while, probably for some fields longer than others.

You're missing the point.

No one is saying this is gonna replace surgery, but it will replace TONS of doctors visits for diagnosis. That's like the entirely of primary care and the bulk of speciality care. I could pay a technician $12/h to follow an AI screen of instructions telling them where to push on a patient's abdomen to get pain diagnosis. I don't need an MD for that. Then you just press on the screen where a patient reports pain. AI takes that into account in the diagnosis.

People go to the doctor when they want to see a human. I've already gotten very good at triaging (reducing) my own visits to the doctor using Google, an advice book I got from Kaiser Permanente, advice phone lines with nurse practitioners etc.

Most of my care is checkups. I don't want to get a mammogram from a purely automated factory assembly line of robots squeezing me. When I say "Ow" I want a
trained tech who reviews images and adjusts the machine to be there. Can't even imagine a Pap without a person there.

Stop peddling your dystopia. I'll pay more to avoid it.

You can carp all you want. Objective data are data. The stone cold reality is that we are on the verge of having AI that consistently outperforms human physicians. There will be zero rational reason to have a human do tons of clinical work that a computer can now do better.

This isn't Dr. Google, lol. The typists also said a computer would never replace their typewriters too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, radiology. Why isn't that a field that will get absolutely decimated by AI. They will just take images and have them interpreted by AI that can use image analysis and machine vision that is going to be less error probe and less biased than a radiologist. No need to pay an army of radiologists $500k salaries anymore when AI can do all of the work in 1/10th the time, with less errors, and for a fraction of the cost.

My brother is a radiologist with lots of experience and can generally tell whether something is cancerous or not, just by looking at it.

I live in a different city and have had wildly differing experiences with radiologists here, some good, some bad.

Can AI replace the decades of experience of a good radiologist or a bad one? Will I need to pay more for the former? Maybe it's not covered by BCBS?

And if the AI misdiagnoses something, who do I sue for medical malpractice? The hospital? AWS? Elon Musk?