4 ms·
> but we won't be seeing fully integrated, doctor-replacement systems for a long time. I see your point and agree - if you look at ML and computing in general
by delegate 10y ago
> but we won't be seeing fully integrated, doctor-replacement systems for a long time.
I see your point and agree - if you look at ML and computing in general as a tool useful within the current context of medicine.
But I think the whole field of medicine (or a big part of it) may become obsolete - because the change will be driven by technology, not medicine.
By monitoring people's vitals in real time - think wrist bands which can do blood tests (+ urine, sweat, sperm, etc), feed that real time data to ML algorithms, train it on billions of people and you can accurately tell ahead of time when a person is getting sick. Next day the drone brings the medicine.
Doctors will still be involved of course, but their role will be mostly to confirm whatever the algorithm has decided..
So I think we'll be seeing a move to preventive medicine / real-time monitoring during the next decade or so and within our lifetime people might not be involved in medicine at all.
That is, if we have peace and things go according to plan... Which is a long bet of course.
- apathy 10y agoNice theory but acute medical emergencies are often stochastic. Let me know if you get to the point where you can predict a pulmonary embolism in members of the general public with enough accuracy to dispatch an ambulance. Preventable conditions are often a combination of genes plus environment plus luck. Trouble is, the "luck" part dominates more often than we'd like. This is why preventive medicine is often accused of being tremendously arrogant. We've got a long ways to go, and it would help to focus on the highest marginal benefit items. (We were supposed to have flying cars, and all I got was the sum total of Hunan knowledge on my phone... not a bad trade, on balance)