5 ms·

If (as acknowledged in the article) AI automates at least part of the work of radiologists (e.g. tool that "saves her 15 to 30 minutes each time she examines a

If (as acknowledged in the article) AI automates at least part of the work of radiologists (e.g. tool that "saves her 15 to 30 minutes each time she examines a kidney image"), don't you fear that the demand of radiologists will decline? Even if some are still needed, surely if a hospital needs X reports per day and now Y radiologists are sufficient to provide them rather than the current Z (Y<Z), that should be something for people considering your career to take into account? On the other hand, how much of your confidence in not being replaced stems from AI not being able to do the work, and how much from legal/societal issues (a human needing to be legally responsible for the diagnoses)? Honestly the description in the article of what a radiologist does "Radiologists do far more than study images. They advise other doctors and surgeons, talk to patients, write reports and analyze medical records. After identifying a suspect cluster of tissue in an organ, they interpret what it might mean for an individual patient with a particular medical history, tapping years of experience" doesn't strike me as anything impossible for AI within a few years, now that models are multimodal and they can work with increasing amounts of text (e.g. medical histories).

dingnuts 1y ago
if the cost for preventative scans goes down, demand will rise. medical demand is incredibly constrained by price. people skip all kinds of tests they need because they can't afford it. the radiologists will have more work to do, not less.
seesthruya 1y ago
There is a national shortage of radiologists in the US, with many hospital systems facing a backlog of unread cases measuring in the thousands. And, the baby boomers are starting to retire, it's only going to get worse. We aren't training enough new radiologists, which is a different discussion. Askl to your question on where my confidence stems from, there are both legal reasons and 'not being able to do the work' reasons. Legal is easy, the most powerful lobby in most states are trial attorneys. They simply won't allow a situation where liability cannot be attached to medical practice. Somebody is getting sued. As to what I do day to day, I don't think I'm just matching patterns. I believe what I do takes general intelligence. Therefore, when AI can do my job, it can do everyone else's job as well.
- 6stringmerc 1y ago
  A big wrinkle in AI evangelism is that proponents don’t understand the concept of human judgment as a “learned” skill - it takes practice and AI models / systems do not suffer consequences the way humans do. They have no emotions and therefore can not “understand” the implications of their decisions. For context, generative AI music is basically unlistenable. I’ve yet to come across a convincing song, let alone 30 seconds worth of viable material. The AI tools can help musicians in their workflow, but they have no concept of human emotion or expression and it shows. Interpreting a radiology problem is more like an art form than a jigsaw puzzle, otherwise it would’ve been automated long ago (like a simple blood test). Like you note, the legal system in the US prides itself on “accountability” (said tongue in cheek) and AI suffers no consequences. Just look how well AI worked in the United Healthcare deployment involving medical care and money. Hint: stock is still falling.
  - ToValueFunfetti 1y ago
    >For context, generative AI music is basically unlistenable. I’ve yet to come across a convincing song, let alone 30 seconds worth of viable material. This one pops into my head every couple months: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4gYStWmO1jQ https://youtube.com/watch?v=4gYStWmO1jQ It's not really my genre, so my judgment is perhaps clouded. Also, I find the dumb lyrics entertaining and they were probably written by a human (though obviously an AI could be prompted to do just as well). I am a fan of unique character in vocals and I love that it pronounces "A-R-A" as "ah-ahr-ah", but the little bridge at 1:40 does nothing for me.
    - mullingitover 1y ago
      You may have missed the month or so where this[1] AI-generated track (remixed by a person, but nonetheless) dominated pop culture. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uW_AUwEv-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uW_AUwEv-0
  - marcusb 1y ago
    > A big wrinkle in AI evangelism is that proponents don’t understand the concept of human judgment as a “learned” skill Which is ironic given how much variation in output quality there is based on the judgement of the person using the LLM (work scope, domain, prompt quality, etc.)
postexitus 1y ago
No. There is no area of medicine where a boost in productivity will cause doctors to have idle time. The wait times may decrease, throughput may increase, diagnosis accuracy may improve, even costs may decrease (press x to doubt) but no, there will never be a case where we will need less radiologists.
- whynotminot 1y ago
  Which may take us to a sort of “Jevens Paradox” kind of place except for medical care. Like there are times already where I’ve put off or not sought medical care because of the hassle involved. If I could just waltz into the office and get an appointment and have an issue seen to same day I would probably do it more often.
  - KerrAvon 1y ago
    To be clear, we also need more medical professionals in general -- they're not keeping up with the population and it's making us all less healthy. Three to six months, or more, in the SF bay area for some critical appointments is really unacceptable, but there's not really an option given supply and demand. I'm sure this will all get better with captain brainworms at the helm.
  - perrygeo 1y ago
    Wonderful insight that I'd never considered. Talk to almost anyone in America and they'll tell you about a health issue that they or their family are deferring due to lack of access. Waiting months or years to simply talk to a specialist, let alone find one that can help, is sadly the norm. Patients rightly feel it's a waste of their time so won't even seek treatment. Remove that barrier to access and we won't see a shiny new streamlined medical system but rather a flood of new patients requiring even more bureaucracy to manage.
  - 98codes 1y ago
    100% why I bothered to stick w/ OneMedical after the Amazon acquisition. I tried to get a "New Dr/New Patient" appointment with any local doctor I could find that took my insurance, and the closest I could get was 3 weeks away. I'm not worried about medical folks having "time to clean" any time soon.
bparsons 1y ago
There is a perpetual shortage of these types of technicians, so it is unlikely that demand for those jobs will drop.

dingnuts 1y ago

if the cost for preventative scans goes down, demand will rise. medical demand is incredibly constrained by price. people skip all kinds of tests they need because they can't afford it. the radiologists will have more work to do, not less.

seesthruya 1y ago

There is a national shortage of radiologists in the US, with many hospital systems facing a backlog of unread cases measuring in the thousands. And, the baby boomers are starting to retire, it's only going to get worse. We aren't training enough new radiologists, which is a different discussion. Askl to your question on where my confidence stems from, there are both legal reasons and 'not being able to do the work' reasons. Legal is easy, the most powerful lobby in most states are trial attorneys. They simply won't allow a situation where liability cannot be attached to medical practice. Somebody is getting sued. As to what I do day to day, I don't think I'm just matching patterns. I believe what I do takes general intelligence. Therefore, when AI can do my job, it can do everyone else's job as well.

6stringmerc 1y ago
A big wrinkle in AI evangelism is that proponents don’t understand the concept of human judgment as a “learned” skill - it takes practice and AI models / systems do not suffer consequences the way humans do. They have no emotions and therefore can not “understand” the implications of their decisions. For context, generative AI music is basically unlistenable. I’ve yet to come across a convincing song, let alone 30 seconds worth of viable material. The AI tools can help musicians in their workflow, but they have no concept of human emotion or expression and it shows. Interpreting a radiology problem is more like an art form than a jigsaw puzzle, otherwise it would’ve been automated long ago (like a simple blood test). Like you note, the legal system in the US prides itself on “accountability” (said tongue in cheek) and AI suffers no consequences. Just look how well AI worked in the United Healthcare deployment involving medical care and money. Hint: stock is still falling.
- ToValueFunfetti 1y ago
  >For context, generative AI music is basically unlistenable. I’ve yet to come across a convincing song, let alone 30 seconds worth of viable material. This one pops into my head every couple months: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4gYStWmO1jQ https://youtube.com/watch?v=4gYStWmO1jQ It's not really my genre, so my judgment is perhaps clouded. Also, I find the dumb lyrics entertaining and they were probably written by a human (though obviously an AI could be prompted to do just as well). I am a fan of unique character in vocals and I love that it pronounces "A-R-A" as "ah-ahr-ah", but the little bridge at 1:40 does nothing for me.
  - mullingitover 1y ago
    You may have missed the month or so where this[1] AI-generated track (remixed by a person, but nonetheless) dominated pop culture. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uW_AUwEv-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uW_AUwEv-0
- marcusb 1y ago
  > A big wrinkle in AI evangelism is that proponents don’t understand the concept of human judgment as a “learned” skill Which is ironic given how much variation in output quality there is based on the judgement of the person using the LLM (work scope, domain, prompt quality, etc.)

postexitus 1y ago

No. There is no area of medicine where a boost in productivity will cause doctors to have idle time. The wait times may decrease, throughput may increase, diagnosis accuracy may improve, even costs may decrease (press x to doubt) but no, there will never be a case where we will need less radiologists.

whynotminot 1y ago
Which may take us to a sort of “Jevens Paradox” kind of place except for medical care. Like there are times already where I’ve put off or not sought medical care because of the hassle involved. If I could just waltz into the office and get an appointment and have an issue seen to same day I would probably do it more often.
- KerrAvon 1y ago
  To be clear, we also need more medical professionals in general -- they're not keeping up with the population and it's making us all less healthy. Three to six months, or more, in the SF bay area for some critical appointments is really unacceptable, but there's not really an option given supply and demand. I'm sure this will all get better with captain brainworms at the helm.
- perrygeo 1y ago
  Wonderful insight that I'd never considered. Talk to almost anyone in America and they'll tell you about a health issue that they or their family are deferring due to lack of access. Waiting months or years to simply talk to a specialist, let alone find one that can help, is sadly the norm. Patients rightly feel it's a waste of their time so won't even seek treatment. Remove that barrier to access and we won't see a shiny new streamlined medical system but rather a flood of new patients requiring even more bureaucracy to manage.
- 98codes 1y ago
  100% why I bothered to stick w/ OneMedical after the Amazon acquisition. I tried to get a "New Dr/New Patient" appointment with any local doctor I could find that took my insurance, and the closest I could get was 3 weeks away. I'm not worried about medical folks having "time to clean" any time soon.

bparsons 1y ago

There is a perpetual shortage of these types of technicians, so it is unlikely that demand for those jobs will drop.