A system like this will lead to an overall increase of mis-readings. Humans are incredibly forgiving and lack focus when confirming opinions, versus generating

A system like this will lead to an overall increase of mis-readings. Humans are incredibly forgiving and lack focus when confirming opinions, versus generating raw opinions. Imagine a Radiologist that already has to read 20 scans per day. With AI helping, and Radiologists just confirming, they will probably be expected to analyze 40 scans per day. Eventually the Radiologist will quickly get into a habit of confirm, confirm, confirm... 500 times in a day. They will stop treating each case as a real reading and instead they look at the AI's output and think, "looks about right" and will become complacent in actually providing valuable feedback. Furthermore, they will be expected to produce more work, meaning they are giving every case less attention than previous. They will begin to just trust the AI to keep up with their schedule. The better use of AI is to flip it on its head. Let the radiologists continue to work like normal. They will produce reports like they do now, only 20 per day. But the AI will analyze each scan after them, and if it flags the scan as remarkable or disagrees with the radiologist, then it bubbles the scan back to the top for further analysis. This way Radiologists are still expected to provide their expertise as they do currently and we generally rely on their opinion, but we will have an added layer provided by AI to catch anything that might be missed. This overall improves the accuracy of medical imaging instead of compromising it (which the original proposed AI solution certainly would do). Productivity would not be increased in this scenario, but accuracy (and indirectly malpractice instances) would improve. I for one, would not want to get scanned somewhere that relies on AI to analyze my scan. But i would love a place that used AI as a second pair of eyes to confirm a human's findings.