3 ms·
>like saying A* is better at finding its way into a maze than a blindfolded man It's not just better than a blind man. It's better than any human, once you sca
by sigmoid10 2y ago
>like saying A* is better at finding its way into a maze than a blindfolded man
It's not just better than a blind man. It's better than any human, once you scale the task up beyond a certain point. Consequently, we should not get hung up on the path taken if the ultimate goal is the best possible care for patients in our overloaded public systems. And this paper suggests there is great potential.
- rscho 2y agoOf course there is potential. There is no doubt that computers and robots will someday outperform docs. But to me (an experienced anesthesiologist), this day is probably futher off than most believe. Especially the robot part.
- pintxo 2y agoGuess the point of this sub-threat is, that as long as you cannot show it in a well-done study, the potential is just that: potential. But not something tangible.
- rscho 2y agoThe big problem is: what does a well-conducted study mean to people? For me personally, I won't be convinced until machines get the same info as the doc, meaning the whole messy file raw plus what can be heard, seen or touched directly, and that's it!
- pintxo 2y agoIf a machine get's (statistically significant) better results than the docs with less information, that should be good as well, no? Although I would tend to say we should expect machines to be significantly better than the average doctor. Before we role them out to everyone we should require them to be at least as good as the top 10% of doctors, I guess.
- sigmoid10 2y agoI.e. literally the first sentence if the top post.