6 ms·

My personal thoughts on this are - A good lawyer + AI will likely win in court against a non lawyer with AI who would likely win in court against just an AI -

My personal thoughts on this are - A good lawyer + AI will likely win in court against a non lawyer with AI who would likely win in court against just an AI - A good software engineer + AI will ship features faster / safer vs a non engineer with AI, who will beat just AI - A good doctor + AI will save more lives than a non doctor + AI, who will perform better than just AI As long as a human has a marginal boost to AI (either by needing to supervise it, regulation, or just AI is simply better with a human agency and intuition) - jobs won't be lost, but the paradox of "productivity increases, yet we end up working harder" will continue. p.s. there is the classic example I'm sure we all are aware of, autopilot is capable of taking off and landing since the 80s, I personally prefer to keep the pilots there, just in case.

JSR_FDED 1y ago
That’s all well and good for the humans with experience, for whom AI is a force multiplier. My concern is for the juniors - there’s going to be far fewer opportunities for them to get started in careers.
- esafak 1y ago
  How did commercial pilots solve the problem?
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago
    Accreditation, Licensing and Unions Things that software developers are extremely allergic to
  - kgilpin 1y ago
    In the US, “Junior” pilots typically work as flight instructors until they have built up enough time to no longer be junior. 1500 flight hours is the essential requirement to be an airline pilot, and every hour spent giving instruction counts as a flight hour. It’s not the only way, but it’s the most common way. Airlines don’t fund this; pilots have to work their way up to this level themselves. In Europe it’s different.
    - ls612 1y ago
      The 1500 hour rule was instituted by congress at the request of pilots unions not the FAA or any other regulator. Europe only requires 250 hours and has a similar aviation safety track record to the US in the 21st century.
  - dgfitz 1y ago
    Not all of them of course, but a lot of them are ex-military.
  - vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
    Accepting that people need to be trained within a system. As of now it's easy enough for software devs to get started without formal training. I don't see that changing. Smart people will be able to jump directly to senior level with the help of AI.
- eranation 1y ago
  It’s all supply and demand. When the market pool of seniors will run dry, and as long as hiring a junior + AI is better than a random person + AI, it will balance itself. I do believe the “we have a tech talent shortage” was and is a lie, the shortage is tech talent that is willing to work for less. Everyone was told to just learn to code and make 6 figures out do college. This drove over-supply. There is still shortage of very good software engineers, just not shortage of people with a computer science degree.
touisteur 1y ago
You (and I) prefer to keep the pilots there, but still, there's a push to need only one person and not two in that plane/cockpit. I have little to no doubt we'll have to relearn some hard lessons after we've AI'd up pilots.
- cj 1y ago
  I wanted to say maybe the 2nd pilot could double as a flight attendent if they're not needed full time in the cockpit. Still retains redundancy while saving the airline money. The problem with that is most skills need to be practiced. When you only need to use your skills unexpectedly in an emergency, that may not end well. Same applies to other fields where AI can do something 95% of the time, with human intervention required in the 5% case. Is it realistic to expect humans to continue to fill that 5% gap if we allow our skills to wane by outsourcing the easiest 95% of a job and only keep the hardest 5% for ourselves.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 1y ago
    > maybe the 2nd pilot could double as a flight attendent Have you ever managed people?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- HenryBemis 1y ago
  You kinda said it, but you didn't hit the nail on the head. Yes we need the pilots. But -I will repeat my own example in my current mega-corp employer- I am about to develop a solution using an LLM (premium/enterprise) that will stop a category of employees from reaching 50, and will remain to 20, and with organic wear & tear, will drop to 10, which will be the 'forever number' (until the next 'jump' in tech). So yes, we keep pilots, but we keep _fewer_ pilots.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    It's unclear what your numbers refer to. If I had to guess, I'd say 50 means the number of employees in the category employed by your employer, but I'm not sure.
bluefirebrand 1y ago
> A good doctor + AI will save more lives than a non doctor + AI, who will perform better than just AI Ok, what about an Average doctor with an AI? Or how about a Bad doctor with an AI? AI assisted medcare will be good if it catches some amount of misdiagnoses AI will be terrible if it winds up reinforcing misdiagnoses My suspicion is that AI will act as a force multiplier to some extent, more than a safety net Yes, some top percentage of performers will get some percentage of performance gain out of AI But it will not make average performers great or bad performers good. It will make bad performers worse
- bee_rider 1y ago
  It could make good doctors faster rather than better. This could allow them to help people who wouldn’t be able to afford them otherwise.
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago
    Doctors already barely see patients for more than a couple of minutes, you want them to be faster?
    - bee_rider 1y ago
      I’m actually not clear on what percentage of the doctor’s work-time is spend doing things other than talking to patients (like arguing with insurance or making records).
      - bluefirebrand 1y ago
        The solution to doctors arguing with insurance isn't "have an AI do it" it's universal health care so doctors don't need to worry about insurance in the slightest I worked on software for electronic medical record note taking and I'm not sure how an LLM can help a doctor speed that up tbh. All of the stats need to be typed into the computer regardless. The LLM can't really speed that up?
guluarte 1y ago
for some time until using AI is the norm like using a computer is today.
rvz 1y ago
The enitre point is less knowledge worker jobs will be needed. Not more.
- mjr00 1y ago
  Only if you assume the current amount of knowledge work being done, or the amount of output from knowledge work, is the maximum amount possible or desired. Which is incorrect. Every software company has a backlog of 1000 features they want to add, everywhere has a shortage of healthcare workers. If AI makes developers on a successful product 20% more efficient, they won't fire 20% of developers, they'll build 20% more features. The problem is the "successful product" part; for a decade or more unsuccessful products were artificially propped up by ZIRP. Now that money isn't free these products are being culled, and the associated jobs along with them. AI is just an excuse.
  - rvz 1y ago
    > Only if you assume the current amount of knowledge work being done, or the amount of output from knowledge work, is the maximum amount possible or desired. Which is incorrect. My point is simple: Why would I hire 100s of employees when I can cut the most junior and mid-level roles and make the seniors more productive with AI? > Every software company has a backlog of 1000 features they want to add, everywhere has a shortage of healthcare workers. If AI makes developers on a successful product 20% more efficient, they won't fire 20% of developers, they'll build 20% more features. Exactly. Keep the seniors with AI and no need for any more engineers, or even just get away with it by firing one of them if they don't want to use AI. > Now that money isn't free these products are being culled, and the associated jobs along with them. AI is just an excuse. The problem is "AI" is already good enough and even if their jobs somehow "come back", the salaries will be much lower (not higher) than before. So knowledge workers have a lot more to lose, rather than gain if they don't use AI.
    - mjr00 1y ago
      > Why would I hire 100s of employees when I can cut the most junior and mid-level roles and make the seniors more productive with AI? Because at competent companies juniors and mid-level employees aren't just cranking out code, they're developing an understanding of the domain and system. If all you cared about was cranking out code and features, you'd have outsourced to Infosys etc long ago. (Admittedly, many companies aren't competent.) > Exactly. Keep the seniors with AI and no need for any more engineers, or even just get away with it by firing one of them if they don't want to use AI. This doesn't make any sense. I asked ChatGPT and it couldn't parse it either. > The problem is "AI" is already good enough and even if their jobs somehow "come back", the salaries will be much lower (not higher) than before. This much is true but tech salary inflation was, again, largely a ZIRP phenomenon and has nothing to do with AI. Junior developers were never really worth $150k/year right out of university.
uludag 1y ago
I've grown to believe the following more extreme (or maybe reasonable) version of what you said: - A good lawyer with or without AI will likely win in court against a mediocre lawyer with AI - A good SWE with or without AI will likely ship features faster/safer than a mediocre engineer with AI - A good doctor with or without AI will save more lives than a mediocre doctor with AI. I've experimented with this personally, stopping all my usage of AI coding tools for a time, including the autocomplete stuff. I by no means found myself barely treading water, soon to be overtaken by my cybernetically enhanced colleagues. In fact, quite the opposite, nothing really changed. - A good doctor + AI will save more lives than a non doctor + AI, who will perform better than just AI I find even entertaining the opposite conclusion comical. Think of, for example, a world acclaimed heart surgeon. Are people seriously entertaining the idea that a rando with some agentic AI setup could outperform such a surgeon in said field, saving more lives? Is this the level of delusion that some people are at now?
- freedomben 1y ago
  As Doc Brown famously said, "I don't think you're thinking fourth-dimensionally." Current gen AI taking all the medical jobs is indeed laughable, but the amount of R&D going into AI right now is staggering and the progress has been rapid, with no signs of slowing down. 5 years from now things will be very different IMHO.
- Izkata 1y ago
  I figure by "doctor" they're thinking of a GP, who most people only ever see taking measurements and diagnosing things, not actually doing physical things like a surgeon.
mattgreenrocks 1y ago
In theory, I agree with this. However, one constant I've observed over my career: the quality and speed of the work I produce has not significantly contributed to career advancement. I know I'm appreciated for the fact that I don't cause more problems, and I usually make the total number of problems go down. I mention this because if quality/speed was truly valued, I believe I'd see more career-related growth (titles, etc) from it at some point in the last 20 years of my career. This isn't to say AI won't be helpful. It is, and I use it some. But the whole schtick around, "SWEs must adopt AI or they'll be left behind," reeks of thought-terminating influencer BS. If people had great ways of assessing programmer productivity, we wouldn't need the ceremony-ridden promo culture that we have in some places. (Arguably most of my career advancement in the last 5 years or so has come mainly from therapy: emotional regulation, holding onto problems that cannot be fixed easily w/o being consumed with trying to fix them or disengaging completely, and applying all that and more to various types of leadership.)
freedomben 1y ago
I think you're missing the spectrum between no jobs being lost and all jobs being lost. I think your first points are correct, but to me that points to some job losses as the good lawyers/doctors/SWEs get more efficient and better, and the lower tier aren't needed anymore and/or aren't worth the salary to employers.
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  Frankly "some jobs lost" is the worst possible outcome. This is the nightmare scenario for me If all jobs are lost then our society becomes fundamentally broken and we need to figure out how to elevate the lives of everyone very quickly before it turns into riots and chaos. The thing is that it will be a very clear signal that something has to change, so change is more likely If no jobs are lost we continue the status quo which is not perfect but is at least relatively sane and tolerable for now and hopefully we can keep working on fixing some of our underlying problems If some jobs are lost but not all, then we see a further widening of the wealth gap but it is just another muddy signal of a problem that will not be dealt with. This is the "boiling the frog" outcome and I don't want to see what happens when we reach the end of that track. Unfortunately that seems like the most likely outcome because boiling the frog is the path we've been on for a long time now.
gh0stcat 1y ago
My concern though is that over time, a "good ANYTHING" + AI will converge to just AI, as you continue to outsource your thinking processes to AI, it will create dependence like any tool. This is a problem for any individual's long term prospects as a source of expertise. How do you think one might combat this? It seems the skills are at odds, and you are in the best position at the very START of using AI, and then your growth likely slows or stops completely as you migrate to thinking via AI API calls.
gosub100 1y ago
A bad doctor with AI can commit malpractice longer by throwing AI under the bus. It remains to be tested, but a plaintiff suing a professional who uses AI may have a harder time prevailing if the defendant uses Shaggy defense and points to the Black Box that is shielded behind layers of third parties and liability limitations.
programmertote 1y ago
I generally agree with your thoughts. I am also concerned about couple of important things: human skill erosion (a lot of new devs who use AI might not bother to learn the basics that can make a difference in production/performance, security, etc.), and human laziness (and thus, gradually growing the habit to trust/rely on AI's output entirely).
jcfrei 1y ago
The scenario you describe leads to a massive productivity boost for some engineers and no work left for the rest. Or in other words: The profit share of labour compared to capital becomes even smaller. Meaning an even more skewed income distribution, where a few make millions and the rest of the currently employed software engineers / lawyers, etc will become bartenders or greeters at walmart.
- eranation 1y ago
  When backlogs run dry and users don’t come up with feature requests / bugs faster than humans + AI can tackle. Yes. Until then, adding one more engineer (with AI) will have a better ROI than firing one. Engineers who are purist and refuse to use AI, might end up with a wake up call. But they are smart, they’ll adapt too.
norir 1y ago
> A good software engineer + AI will ship features faster / safer vs a non engineer with AI, who will beat just AI Safer is the crucial word here. If you remove it, I'd argue the ordering should be reversed. I also will point out that you could replace ai with amphetamines and have close to the same meaning. (And like amphetamines an ai can only act through humans, never solely on its own.)
qgin 1y ago
When it's been studied so far, AI alone does better than AI + human doctor >Surprisingly, in many cases, A.I. systems working independently performed better than when combined with physician input. This pattern emerged consistently across different medical tasks, from chest X-ray and mammography interpretation to clinical decision-making. https://erictopol.substack.com/p/when-doctors-with-ai-are-outperformed https://erictopol.substack.com/p/when-doctors-with-ai-are-ou...

JSR_FDED 1y ago

That’s all well and good for the humans with experience, for whom AI is a force multiplier. My concern is for the juniors - there’s going to be far fewer opportunities for them to get started in careers.

esafak 1y ago
How did commercial pilots solve the problem?
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  Accreditation, Licensing and Unions Things that software developers are extremely allergic to
- kgilpin 1y ago
  In the US, “Junior” pilots typically work as flight instructors until they have built up enough time to no longer be junior. 1500 flight hours is the essential requirement to be an airline pilot, and every hour spent giving instruction counts as a flight hour. It’s not the only way, but it’s the most common way. Airlines don’t fund this; pilots have to work their way up to this level themselves. In Europe it’s different.
  - ls612 1y ago
    The 1500 hour rule was instituted by congress at the request of pilots unions not the FAA or any other regulator. Europe only requires 250 hours and has a similar aviation safety track record to the US in the 21st century.
- dgfitz 1y ago
  Not all of them of course, but a lot of them are ex-military.
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
  Accepting that people need to be trained within a system. As of now it's easy enough for software devs to get started without formal training. I don't see that changing. Smart people will be able to jump directly to senior level with the help of AI.
eranation 1y ago
It’s all supply and demand. When the market pool of seniors will run dry, and as long as hiring a junior + AI is better than a random person + AI, it will balance itself. I do believe the “we have a tech talent shortage” was and is a lie, the shortage is tech talent that is willing to work for less. Everyone was told to just learn to code and make 6 figures out do college. This drove over-supply. There is still shortage of very good software engineers, just not shortage of people with a computer science degree.

touisteur 1y ago

You (and I) prefer to keep the pilots there, but still, there's a push to need only one person and not two in that plane/cockpit. I have little to no doubt we'll have to relearn some hard lessons after we've AI'd up pilots.

cj 1y ago
I wanted to say maybe the 2nd pilot could double as a flight attendent if they're not needed full time in the cockpit. Still retains redundancy while saving the airline money. The problem with that is most skills need to be practiced. When you only need to use your skills unexpectedly in an emergency, that may not end well. Same applies to other fields where AI can do something 95% of the time, with human intervention required in the 5% case. Is it realistic to expect humans to continue to fill that 5% gap if we allow our skills to wane by outsourcing the easiest 95% of a job and only keep the hardest 5% for ourselves.
- HeyLaughingBoy 1y ago
  > maybe the 2nd pilot could double as a flight attendent Have you ever managed people?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
HenryBemis 1y ago
You kinda said it, but you didn't hit the nail on the head. Yes we need the pilots. But -I will repeat my own example in my current mega-corp employer- I am about to develop a solution using an LLM (premium/enterprise) that will stop a category of employees from reaching 50, and will remain to 20, and with organic wear & tear, will drop to 10, which will be the 'forever number' (until the next 'jump' in tech). So yes, we keep pilots, but we keep _fewer_ pilots.
- hollerith 1y ago
  It's unclear what your numbers refer to. If I had to guess, I'd say 50 means the number of employees in the category employed by your employer, but I'm not sure.

bluefirebrand 1y ago

> A good doctor + AI will save more lives than a non doctor + AI, who will perform better than just AI Ok, what about an Average doctor with an AI? Or how about a Bad doctor with an AI? AI assisted medcare will be good if it catches some amount of misdiagnoses AI will be terrible if it winds up reinforcing misdiagnoses My suspicion is that AI will act as a force multiplier to some extent, more than a safety net Yes, some top percentage of performers will get some percentage of performance gain out of AI But it will not make average performers great or bad performers good. It will make bad performers worse

bee_rider 1y ago
It could make good doctors faster rather than better. This could allow them to help people who wouldn’t be able to afford them otherwise.
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  Doctors already barely see patients for more than a couple of minutes, you want them to be faster?
  - bee_rider 1y ago
    I’m actually not clear on what percentage of the doctor’s work-time is spend doing things other than talking to patients (like arguing with insurance or making records).
    - bluefirebrand 1y ago
      The solution to doctors arguing with insurance isn't "have an AI do it" it's universal health care so doctors don't need to worry about insurance in the slightest I worked on software for electronic medical record note taking and I'm not sure how an LLM can help a doctor speed that up tbh. All of the stats need to be typed into the computer regardless. The LLM can't really speed that up?

guluarte 1y ago

for some time until using AI is the norm like using a computer is today.

rvz 1y ago

The enitre point is less knowledge worker jobs will be needed. Not more.

mjr00 1y ago
Only if you assume the current amount of knowledge work being done, or the amount of output from knowledge work, is the maximum amount possible or desired. Which is incorrect. Every software company has a backlog of 1000 features they want to add, everywhere has a shortage of healthcare workers. If AI makes developers on a successful product 20% more efficient, they won't fire 20% of developers, they'll build 20% more features. The problem is the "successful product" part; for a decade or more unsuccessful products were artificially propped up by ZIRP. Now that money isn't free these products are being culled, and the associated jobs along with them. AI is just an excuse.
- rvz 1y ago
  > Only if you assume the current amount of knowledge work being done, or the amount of output from knowledge work, is the maximum amount possible or desired. Which is incorrect. My point is simple: Why would I hire 100s of employees when I can cut the most junior and mid-level roles and make the seniors more productive with AI? > Every software company has a backlog of 1000 features they want to add, everywhere has a shortage of healthcare workers. If AI makes developers on a successful product 20% more efficient, they won't fire 20% of developers, they'll build 20% more features. Exactly. Keep the seniors with AI and no need for any more engineers, or even just get away with it by firing one of them if they don't want to use AI. > Now that money isn't free these products are being culled, and the associated jobs along with them. AI is just an excuse. The problem is "AI" is already good enough and even if their jobs somehow "come back", the salaries will be much lower (not higher) than before. So knowledge workers have a lot more to lose, rather than gain if they don't use AI.
  - mjr00 1y ago
    > Why would I hire 100s of employees when I can cut the most junior and mid-level roles and make the seniors more productive with AI? Because at competent companies juniors and mid-level employees aren't just cranking out code, they're developing an understanding of the domain and system. If all you cared about was cranking out code and features, you'd have outsourced to Infosys etc long ago. (Admittedly, many companies aren't competent.) > Exactly. Keep the seniors with AI and no need for any more engineers, or even just get away with it by firing one of them if they don't want to use AI. This doesn't make any sense. I asked ChatGPT and it couldn't parse it either. > The problem is "AI" is already good enough and even if their jobs somehow "come back", the salaries will be much lower (not higher) than before. This much is true but tech salary inflation was, again, largely a ZIRP phenomenon and has nothing to do with AI. Junior developers were never really worth $150k/year right out of university.

uludag 1y ago

I've grown to believe the following more extreme (or maybe reasonable) version of what you said: - A good lawyer with or without AI will likely win in court against a mediocre lawyer with AI - A good SWE with or without AI will likely ship features faster/safer than a mediocre engineer with AI - A good doctor with or without AI will save more lives than a mediocre doctor with AI. I've experimented with this personally, stopping all my usage of AI coding tools for a time, including the autocomplete stuff. I by no means found myself barely treading water, soon to be overtaken by my cybernetically enhanced colleagues. In fact, quite the opposite, nothing really changed. - A good doctor + AI will save more lives than a non doctor + AI, who will perform better than just AI I find even entertaining the opposite conclusion comical. Think of, for example, a world acclaimed heart surgeon. Are people seriously entertaining the idea that a rando with some agentic AI setup could outperform such a surgeon in said field, saving more lives? Is this the level of delusion that some people are at now?

freedomben 1y ago
As Doc Brown famously said, "I don't think you're thinking fourth-dimensionally." Current gen AI taking all the medical jobs is indeed laughable, but the amount of R&D going into AI right now is staggering and the progress has been rapid, with no signs of slowing down. 5 years from now things will be very different IMHO.
Izkata 1y ago
I figure by "doctor" they're thinking of a GP, who most people only ever see taking measurements and diagnosing things, not actually doing physical things like a surgeon.

mattgreenrocks 1y ago

In theory, I agree with this. However, one constant I've observed over my career: the quality and speed of the work I produce has not significantly contributed to career advancement. I know I'm appreciated for the fact that I don't cause more problems, and I usually make the total number of problems go down. I mention this because if quality/speed was truly valued, I believe I'd see more career-related growth (titles, etc) from it at some point in the last 20 years of my career. This isn't to say AI won't be helpful. It is, and I use it some. But the whole schtick around, "SWEs must adopt AI or they'll be left behind," reeks of thought-terminating influencer BS. If people had great ways of assessing programmer productivity, we wouldn't need the ceremony-ridden promo culture that we have in some places. (Arguably most of my career advancement in the last 5 years or so has come mainly from therapy: emotional regulation, holding onto problems that cannot be fixed easily w/o being consumed with trying to fix them or disengaging completely, and applying all that and more to various types of leadership.)

freedomben 1y ago

I think you're missing the spectrum between no jobs being lost and all jobs being lost. I think your first points are correct, but to me that points to some job losses as the good lawyers/doctors/SWEs get more efficient and better, and the lower tier aren't needed anymore and/or aren't worth the salary to employers.

bluefirebrand 1y ago
Frankly "some jobs lost" is the worst possible outcome. This is the nightmare scenario for me If all jobs are lost then our society becomes fundamentally broken and we need to figure out how to elevate the lives of everyone very quickly before it turns into riots and chaos. The thing is that it will be a very clear signal that something has to change, so change is more likely If no jobs are lost we continue the status quo which is not perfect but is at least relatively sane and tolerable for now and hopefully we can keep working on fixing some of our underlying problems If some jobs are lost but not all, then we see a further widening of the wealth gap but it is just another muddy signal of a problem that will not be dealt with. This is the "boiling the frog" outcome and I don't want to see what happens when we reach the end of that track. Unfortunately that seems like the most likely outcome because boiling the frog is the path we've been on for a long time now.

gh0stcat 1y ago

My concern though is that over time, a "good ANYTHING" + AI will converge to just AI, as you continue to outsource your thinking processes to AI, it will create dependence like any tool. This is a problem for any individual's long term prospects as a source of expertise. How do you think one might combat this? It seems the skills are at odds, and you are in the best position at the very START of using AI, and then your growth likely slows or stops completely as you migrate to thinking via AI API calls.

gosub100 1y ago

A bad doctor with AI can commit malpractice longer by throwing AI under the bus. It remains to be tested, but a plaintiff suing a professional who uses AI may have a harder time prevailing if the defendant uses Shaggy defense and points to the Black Box that is shielded behind layers of third parties and liability limitations.

programmertote 1y ago

I generally agree with your thoughts. I am also concerned about couple of important things: human skill erosion (a lot of new devs who use AI might not bother to learn the basics that can make a difference in production/performance, security, etc.), and human laziness (and thus, gradually growing the habit to trust/rely on AI's output entirely).

jcfrei 1y ago

The scenario you describe leads to a massive productivity boost for some engineers and no work left for the rest. Or in other words: The profit share of labour compared to capital becomes even smaller. Meaning an even more skewed income distribution, where a few make millions and the rest of the currently employed software engineers / lawyers, etc will become bartenders or greeters at walmart.

eranation 1y ago
When backlogs run dry and users don’t come up with feature requests / bugs faster than humans + AI can tackle. Yes. Until then, adding one more engineer (with AI) will have a better ROI than firing one. Engineers who are purist and refuse to use AI, might end up with a wake up call. But they are smart, they’ll adapt too.

norir 1y ago

> A good software engineer + AI will ship features faster / safer vs a non engineer with AI, who will beat just AI Safer is the crucial word here. If you remove it, I'd argue the ordering should be reversed. I also will point out that you could replace ai with amphetamines and have close to the same meaning. (And like amphetamines an ai can only act through humans, never solely on its own.)

qgin 1y ago

When it's been studied so far, AI alone does better than AI + human doctor >Surprisingly, in many cases, A.I. systems working independently performed better than when combined with physician input. This pattern emerged consistently across different medical tasks, from chest X-ray and mammography interpretation to clinical decision-making. https://erictopol.substack.com/p/when-doctors-with-ai-are-outperformed https://erictopol.substack.com/p/when-doctors-with-ai-are-ou...