AI outperforming physicians. Ban humans from practicing certain medicine?

[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.

[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.

+1

[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.

I would not sign up to have an ERCP performed by AI. You wouldn’t either.

[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.

I would not sign up to have an ERCP performed by AI. You wouldn’t either.

People won't have a choice soon when insurance no longer covers physician fees when AI will cost $20 with less error...

[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.

DH works in this space, specifically the AI radiology space. He says we are very far from having AI replace radiology.

I am not sure who the OP is who keeps on insisting physicians can be replaced. There are still too too many nuances.

[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.

DH works in this space, specifically the AI radiology space. He says we are very far from having AI replace radiology.

I am not sure who the OP is who keeps on insisting physicians can be replaced. There are still too too many nuances.

Confirmed by an article in yesterday's NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/14/technology/ai-jobs-radiologists-mayo-clinic.html

[Anonymous]

yeah, I toooooottttallllyyyy believe eeeeevvveerryyyything I read on LinkedIn.

[Anonymous]

I already like telehealth better than going into an office. Doctors have been a pretty let down whenever I had a problem so far.

[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.

DH works in this space, specifically the AI radiology space. He says we are very far from having AI replace radiology.

I am not sure who the OP is who keeps on insisting physicians can be replaced. There are still too too many nuances.

OP knows better than everyone. They totally did their own research.

[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.

AI is a good first place to start. Seriously, my partner has had some unique health issues for last 6 months. And many of the doctors refuse to admit certain symptoms may be because of X, yet a simple google search indicates that from specialists. So yeah, when you can accurately self diagnose even for "unique symptoms" it seems like doctors should start there. Especially when a general physician has no way to be 100% up to date on everything.

it took getting a few levels into specialists before one finally quickly said " yes, I have seen that exact symptom in some patients with same issues as you" and admit that's part of the diagnosis.
Why not use AI along with a real person to confirm if it gets you to the answer more rapidly. 99% of the time it's accurate.

[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.

There will definately be a role for doctors in the future. AI cannot replace them. But doctors can integrate AI/medical space searches to help direct them and/or confirm a possible diagnosis. Because when I can search and find a diagnosis for my symptoms, yet a visit to the doctor has them going a different path, you wonder can they investigate both paths?