An AI that reliably catches stuff that humans sometimes miss is still an advancement in the state of the art. I have a friend who was living with Multiple Scle

An AI that reliably catches stuff that humans sometimes miss is still an advancement in the state of the art. I have a friend who was living with Multiple Sclerosis for two decades until they moved to a new neighbourhood and started looking for a new specialist. The new MS specialist looked at her history for thirty seconds and said, “you do not have Multiple Sclerosis.” It turns out that about two decades ago she got married to a chilli-lover, and it was the newly introduced chillies in her diet that were causing inflammation of basically everything inside her body. About a year after the last consumption of chillies she’s basically normal. As much as you can be after two decades of restricted mobility caused by inflamed tissues. AI only has to be reliably better than the worst humans can be to be incredibly useful. “Here’s this morning’s batch of radiology that has been pre-vetted by the computer. Some interesting results on case 34, and the computer needs advice on 56 and 80.” There’s also the issue that you point out that we are training AI to find specific deviations from nominal, rather than teaching the AI to detect anything that deviates sufficiently from nominal to be of medical concern.