4 ms·
The commercial entity backing the ML program should be responsible. If one doesn't exist then the comparison fails, as one would presumably not be willing to t
by otoburb 9y ago
The commercial entity backing the ML program should be responsible. If one doesn't exist then the comparison fails, as one would presumably not be willing to trust the competency of a public domain ML program without a true, commercially and medically backed "second" opinion (algorithmic or otherwise).
Perhaps one day, ML programs running eye diagnostics will be as cheap and disposable to use as pregnancy stick tests: "Point and diagnose."
- TuringNYC 9y agoYes, the commercial entity backing the ML program, and possibly multiple associated entities would be held responsible, or at least dragged into litigation. You can get insurance companies to write custom policies for such things, but I dont think there has yet been a standards-setting case -- anyone know of existing or in-progress case law in this arena?
- solomatov 9y agoMost likely all these models have TOS or EULAs which shift liability in such situations.