5 ms·

AI Nursing Ethics: Viability of Robots and Artificial Intelligence in Nursing

29 points by rustoo 3y ago

JimtheCoder 3y ago
It seems that with every study investigating whether AI and robots can replace humans in a specific task, the answer is always "Maybe, eventually..."
- rahimnathwani 3y ago
  Isn't that what you'd expect? After all: - the set of things which AI robots won't ever be able to do is tiny or nonexistent, and - the stuff that we already know AI can do is in the realm of startups and VC, not academic papers
- tuxracer 3y ago
  If we're going to have a evidence based discussion The answer always measurable for a given task For some tasks the answer is measurably demonstrably: yes, today.
  - godelski 3y ago
    > The answer always measurable for a given task How do you measure a given task? (I think this is a much harder question that you let on)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
godelski 3y ago
There's a difficult question to often answer with these kinds of things, because it isn't as straight forward as it seems. Using AI workers seems like a big benefit for some things because there is a huge demand for workers and not enough workers, so even a very low quality worker (i.e. AI) appears beneficial. But once AI enter a job it is entirely possible that this prevents future people from pursuing it, meaning that actual people get replaced with them. Through an entirely implicit process and not because the machines are better, thus lowering the quality of the market which was already suffering. But we don't know if this is going to happen or not and can be quite hard to predict. So do you fill in the gap with anything, even subpar, to benefit people now or do you hold off because doing so can prevent a lot more harm down the line. And that's just with all good intentions. Obviously the situation can be worse when people are willing to make substantial tradeoffs in cost for quality (which I think we've all see this to be quite common practice). I really do think that a lot of these ethics questions are a lot harder than the public discourse (or even more savvy like HN) give them credit for. I don't think a strong stance can be taken unless you study these specific areas in depth, and even then there's a hell of a lot of noise. I think one of the best things we can do is to at least acknowledge the level of noise in our opinions/stances. It would be quite naive to take a hard stance on a solution method when such uncertainty exists in our models.
- totetsu 3y ago
  In the case of japan, This focus on robotics and ai workforce is at the expense of working on the problem of proper support an integration for nurses from overseas.
- visarga 3y ago
  > But once AI enter a job it is entirely possible that this prevents future people from pursuing it, meaning that actual people get replaced with them. Through an entirely implicit process and not because the machines are better, thus lowering the quality of the market which was already suffering. The opposite is also possible - AI entering a field would produce many new capabilities that require humans to be involved in their development, deployment, supervision, or working in supporting tasks. AI is probably the field that will generate the most demand induction. See "lump of labour" and "Jevons paradox", they are related to this topic of demand growth vs automation growth. - demand depends on supply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand - work depends on demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy - increased supply leads to increased demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    There are just motivational aspects to it too, like do you want to supervise a bunch of AIs? Do you want a bunch of "AI" systems supervising you ? As much as we love AI and as much as it is getting shoved into our lives whether we like it or not from the tech overlords. I'm not sure everyone wants to be living in an AI world by default.
    - JimtheCoder 3y ago
      "I'm not sure everyone wants to be living in an AI world by default." I sure don't. The problem is that the AI will be integrated into society far before people realize that they don't really want it, and it will be too late to turn back...
  - 3y ago
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
rmilejczz 3y ago
I’d rather have an AI doctor than an AI nurse
- lockhouse 3y ago
  I agree. Pathologists and radiologists are especially vulnerable to being replaced by AI, since they essentially use algorithms for diagnosis already and don't usually directly interact with patients. If the test result or the image shows this, the diagnosis is this. Nurses, PAs, and doctors that interface directly with patients will likely remain human for the foreseeable future I think. I know I'd rather receive a potentially devastating diagnosis from a human being that is able to show empathy instead of a cold machine.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kritiko 3y ago
I wonder about the possibilities for AI to provide better bedside manner and support difficult conversations for clinicians. Obviously there are risks with increased reliance automation, but it seems like there are also possibilities for improving communication and reducing emotional labor while still letting humans drive the knowledge work part of medicine.
- eternityforest 3y ago
  I always assumed it would be the opposite, knowledge work would be done by AI with close to no human input, with doctors becoming pretty much psychologists with machine operator training. Emotional labor is a lot less taxing when you're not understaffed and overworked and you actually get to sleep. Especially if you have access to better tech to actually be able to help more people, then you don't have to watch as much suffering.

29 points by rustoo 3y ago

It seems that with every study investigating whether AI and robots can replace humans in a specific task, the answer is always "Maybe, eventually..."

rahimnathwani 3y ago
Isn't that what you'd expect? After all: - the set of things which AI robots won't ever be able to do is tiny or nonexistent, and - the stuff that we already know AI can do is in the realm of startups and VC, not academic papers
tuxracer 3y ago
If we're going to have a evidence based discussion The answer always measurable for a given task For some tasks the answer is measurably demonstrably: yes, today.
- godelski 3y ago
  > The answer always measurable for a given task How do you measure a given task? (I think this is a much harder question that you let on)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

godelski 3y ago

There's a difficult question to often answer with these kinds of things, because it isn't as straight forward as it seems. Using AI workers seems like a big benefit for some things because there is a huge demand for workers and not enough workers, so even a very low quality worker (i.e. AI) appears beneficial. But once AI enter a job it is entirely possible that this prevents future people from pursuing it, meaning that actual people get replaced with them. Through an entirely implicit process and not because the machines are better, thus lowering the quality of the market which was already suffering. But we don't know if this is going to happen or not and can be quite hard to predict. So do you fill in the gap with anything, even subpar, to benefit people now or do you hold off because doing so can prevent a lot more harm down the line. And that's just with all good intentions. Obviously the situation can be worse when people are willing to make substantial tradeoffs in cost for quality (which I think we've all see this to be quite common practice). I really do think that a lot of these ethics questions are a lot harder than the public discourse (or even more savvy like HN) give them credit for. I don't think a strong stance can be taken unless you study these specific areas in depth, and even then there's a hell of a lot of noise. I think one of the best things we can do is to at least acknowledge the level of noise in our opinions/stances. It would be quite naive to take a hard stance on a solution method when such uncertainty exists in our models.

totetsu 3y ago
In the case of japan, This focus on robotics and ai workforce is at the expense of working on the problem of proper support an integration for nurses from overseas.
visarga 3y ago
> But once AI enter a job it is entirely possible that this prevents future people from pursuing it, meaning that actual people get replaced with them. Through an entirely implicit process and not because the machines are better, thus lowering the quality of the market which was already suffering. The opposite is also possible - AI entering a field would produce many new capabilities that require humans to be involved in their development, deployment, supervision, or working in supporting tasks. AI is probably the field that will generate the most demand induction. See "lump of labour" and "Jevons paradox", they are related to this topic of demand growth vs automation growth. - demand depends on supply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand - work depends on demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy - increased supply leads to increased demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  There are just motivational aspects to it too, like do you want to supervise a bunch of AIs? Do you want a bunch of "AI" systems supervising you ? As much as we love AI and as much as it is getting shoved into our lives whether we like it or not from the tech overlords. I'm not sure everyone wants to be living in an AI world by default.
  - JimtheCoder 3y ago
    "I'm not sure everyone wants to be living in an AI world by default." I sure don't. The problem is that the AI will be integrated into society far before people realize that they don't really want it, and it will be too late to turn back...
- 3y ago

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]

rmilejczz 3y ago

I’d rather have an AI doctor than an AI nurse

lockhouse 3y ago
I agree. Pathologists and radiologists are especially vulnerable to being replaced by AI, since they essentially use algorithms for diagnosis already and don't usually directly interact with patients. If the test result or the image shows this, the diagnosis is this. Nurses, PAs, and doctors that interface directly with patients will likely remain human for the foreseeable future I think. I know I'd rather receive a potentially devastating diagnosis from a human being that is able to show empathy instead of a cold machine.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

kritiko 3y ago

I wonder about the possibilities for AI to provide better bedside manner and support difficult conversations for clinicians. Obviously there are risks with increased reliance automation, but it seems like there are also possibilities for improving communication and reducing emotional labor while still letting humans drive the knowledge work part of medicine.

eternityforest 3y ago
I always assumed it would be the opposite, knowledge work would be done by AI with close to no human input, with doctors becoming pretty much psychologists with machine operator training. Emotional labor is a lot less taxing when you're not understaffed and overworked and you actually get to sleep. Especially if you have access to better tech to actually be able to help more people, then you don't have to watch as much suffering.