4 ms·

> WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY WANT THEIR WORK AUTOMATED AWAY? Because any radiologist directly involved in the work of automating it away could capture multiple sa

> WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY WANT THEIR WORK AUTOMATED AWAY? Because any radiologist directly involved in the work of automating it away could capture multiple salaries. > but mostly dragging their feet and hindering real progress, presumably because of the threat it posed. It sounds more like they were not offered a stake, or were not sufficiently convinced it would work enough to accept a stake.

prepend 5y ago
I agree with you and don’t know why people would think radiologists would be against automating their jobs away. Most radiologists aren’t paid by the hour so it’s not like the longer it takes to review and diagnose the better. Having automation tools would allow a radiologist to do even more work and make even more money. Unless someone literally thinks they won’t need an authoritative radiologist in the loop any longer. But that’s pretty silly since we can’t even automate a McDonald’s cook out of the picture.
- TuringNYC 5y ago
  >>> I agree with you and don’t know why people would think radiologists would be against automating their jobs away...Having automation tools would allow a radiologist to do even more work and make even more money. I'd love to understand your viewpoint here. What you're describing would be awesome to a small segment of radiologists, but then what happens to the rest of them? Further, why would the rest agree to it?!?! This isnt web ad sales or hosting where anyone can come in, do a better job, and win market share and get rich. Rather, here, the limited set of Radiologists would need to agree on standards of practice via the ABR -- why would they do that if it means most of them suffer as a result?
  - prepend 5y ago
    > awesome to a small segment of radiologists, but then what happens to the rest of them? The same thing, they would do more radiology consults. This is just like any other tech that’s improved radiology, it’s reduced the cost so there are more consults done. Let’s say that a review takes 10 minutes without this new tech. With the new tech the review takes 30 seconds. So now a single radiologist can do 120 reviews an hour instead of 6. That’s great, as every radiologist will make way more money. And also more radiology consults will be done because things that are too expensive and time consuming now become quick and cheaper. Most of them don’t suffer, they do better. Again, this isn’t a situation where any radiologists are getting fired and any solution that doesn’t involve radiologists is stupid since you still need humans to confirm and take responsibility for diagnosis or confirmation.
- rudnevr 5y ago
  From what I've seen in clinical collaborators in Life Sciences, they're usually driven by pretty selfish incentives - publications, conferences, money, a way to push someone's pet theory if they happen to have one. They have major jobs, with patients and hierarchical games aside from R&D, and rarely care about research progress as such. (And research is mostly low quality, with obscure clinical perspectives). They don't need to actively obstruct, but they have enough reasons not to care.

prepend 5y ago

I agree with you and don’t know why people would think radiologists would be against automating their jobs away. Most radiologists aren’t paid by the hour so it’s not like the longer it takes to review and diagnose the better. Having automation tools would allow a radiologist to do even more work and make even more money. Unless someone literally thinks they won’t need an authoritative radiologist in the loop any longer. But that’s pretty silly since we can’t even automate a McDonald’s cook out of the picture.

TuringNYC 5y ago
>>> I agree with you and don’t know why people would think radiologists would be against automating their jobs away...Having automation tools would allow a radiologist to do even more work and make even more money. I'd love to understand your viewpoint here. What you're describing would be awesome to a small segment of radiologists, but then what happens to the rest of them? Further, why would the rest agree to it?!?! This isnt web ad sales or hosting where anyone can come in, do a better job, and win market share and get rich. Rather, here, the limited set of Radiologists would need to agree on standards of practice via the ABR -- why would they do that if it means most of them suffer as a result?
- prepend 5y ago
  > awesome to a small segment of radiologists, but then what happens to the rest of them? The same thing, they would do more radiology consults. This is just like any other tech that’s improved radiology, it’s reduced the cost so there are more consults done. Let’s say that a review takes 10 minutes without this new tech. With the new tech the review takes 30 seconds. So now a single radiologist can do 120 reviews an hour instead of 6. That’s great, as every radiologist will make way more money. And also more radiology consults will be done because things that are too expensive and time consuming now become quick and cheaper. Most of them don’t suffer, they do better. Again, this isn’t a situation where any radiologists are getting fired and any solution that doesn’t involve radiologists is stupid since you still need humans to confirm and take responsibility for diagnosis or confirmation.
rudnevr 5y ago
From what I've seen in clinical collaborators in Life Sciences, they're usually driven by pretty selfish incentives - publications, conferences, money, a way to push someone's pet theory if they happen to have one. They have major jobs, with patients and hierarchical games aside from R&D, and rarely care about research progress as such. (And research is mostly low quality, with obscure clinical perspectives). They don't need to actively obstruct, but they have enough reasons not to care.