3 ms·
If there was always (or, let's be honest, ever) time and resources to test every branch, then that would be a fair comparison.
by Arainach 3y ago
If there was always (or, let's be honest, ever) time and resources to test every branch, then that would be a fair comparison.
- KerrAvon 3y agoIt’s not fair to the doctor, but it’s better for the patient.
- Dylan16807 3y agoA robot doesn't have more resources, but it effectively has unlimited time to consider every branch.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThe patient they're diagnosing, however, might not.
- Dylan16807 3y agoI wrote "consider" because that doesn't need to involve the patient. But also the patient usually has plenty of time to answer additional questions. You can cover a ton of ground in less than an hour.
- ceejayoz 3y ago“I’ve considered all the options for three months. You have a rare cancer that will kill you in… uh oh.” Patient doesn’t have to be sitting in the exam room to run out of time.
- Dylan16807 3y agoWhat I meant is that the computer can do three months of considering in less than five minutes real time. That's the benefit of tossing raw processing power at things.
- koolba 3y agoThat’s the point. Time and parallelization is cheap for machines. I can see a short term future where “doctors” are replaced with non-doctor medical personal who gather data. Blood draws, temperature checks, collecting stool samples, photographing lesions, these are all easier with two hands. Analyzing the data will be done for the masses by machine. And of course because of how the USA healthcare system works, it will somehow manage to be evens more expensive.