AI outperforming physicians. Ban humans from practicing certain medicine?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A lot of what you are referring to as "practicing medicine" has already been outsourced to NPs who follow scripts to diagnose ordinary issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You forgot a huge metric. People like speaking with people. This will not change. I want my doctor to be a person. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You forgot a huge metric. People like speaking with people. This will not change. I want my doctor to be a person. Period.

Yes, for now. But there will be an entire generation born soon where they'll be exposed from birth to adulthood to AI healthcare. After that, we've gone over the tipping point and nearly everyone in the future will be very comfy with almost never seeing a physician for many years. There will come a time where no one wants to see a human doctor anymore, because why would anyone choose an option with potentially worse healthcare outcomes and higher risks for misdiagnosis due to error? It is logical sense to pick the option with lower risks for errors, which is going to be AI very soon.

[Anonymous]

Before I go into the doctor, I have uploaded my labs into AI as well as my symptoms.

I can make sure I bring up relevant info - like I stopped eating eggs three months ago - because I know it might affect my diagnosis and treatment. I am a more educated consumer and am able to have a more productive visit with my doctor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before I go into the doctor, I have uploaded my labs into AI as well as my symptoms.

I can make sure I bring up relevant info - like I stopped eating eggs three months ago - because I know it might affect my diagnosis and treatment. I am a more educated consumer and am able to have a more productive visit with my doctor.

I do this as well.

I just feel more educated and like I can actually have an informed conversation w/my doctor vs feeling confused by what they say. I don't tell them I feed things to AI. I just ask questions of my doctor, and I've yet to have a doctor worried about how I ask or what I ask. It seems more effective and more productive this way and like I am actually getting my money's worth vs simply paying $350 OOP to the doctor for talking at me for 5 minutes and walking out the door.

[Anonymous]

PP again. I should have added: I would never just let AI diagnose and "treat" me. I want an actual human for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Was it a peer reviewed study?

[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.

AI radiology recently completely missed that my appendix was necrotic, so i'm going to say we aren't there yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

AI radiology recently completely missed that my appendix was necrotic, so i'm going to say we aren't there yet.

Every peice of technology goes through iterations. Remember how gigantic the first iPod was? Now we don't even use them anymore because we have the entire universe of music on our phones.

In less than 20 years AI will likely be far better than any radiologist on the planet. Watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Was it a peer reviewed study?

Of course! Reviewed by its AI peers! And I’m sure it discussed false alarm rates and the dangers of diagnosing patients based on an entirely recursive model.

[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.

What if you needed surgery?

[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.

What if you needed surgery?

Are you dim?

We are talking about dx.

That's like 80% of medicine. Seeing sick people and figuring out what's wrong first before you try to fix something.

We weren't talking about replacing surgery to fix. The vast majority of health conditions are treated pharmacologically without surgery.

[Anonymous]

We definitely don't need hands on lawyers either
AI can do that job infinitely better and cheaper

[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.

What if you needed surgery?

Are you dim?

We are talking about dx.

That's like 80% of medicine. Seeing sick people and figuring out what's wrong first before you try to fix something.

We weren't talking about replacing surgery to fix. The vast majority of health conditions are treated pharmacologically without surgery.

But that is right on the horizon with robotics with AI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Almost anything is better than your average doctor these days.

A person, even a sub 100 I.Q. midwit, could learn more about an illness in a few days than the average Gen Pract doc would know.

Doctors have to learn A LITTLE about A LOT, so they aren't very knowledgeable about any specific topic they don't have a lot of experience in personally.