3 ms·

>There are a lot of health issues that an application can detect faster and more correctly than a doctor. Indeed. Much of everyday diagnosis is of the form: t

>There are a lot of health issues that an application can detect faster and more correctly than a doctor. Indeed. Much of everyday diagnosis is of the form: these are the symptoms, what is the distribution of possible health issues related to these symptoms? This is the stuff that computers crush.

skywhopper 13y ago
The problem is not so much identifying problems based on symptoms, but in getting the computer to understand the symptoms. You need humans to talk to patients, to assess the patient's physical appearance and behavior, to look into noses, throats, eyes, and ears and judge what they see, to feel joints and organs and muscles, to understand the hundreds of ways patients might describe their own symptoms, and to recognize symptoms the patients themselves may not. The humans required to perform all of these tasks could then quantify all that data into something a computer can comprehend and let it make the diagnosis--and that's perhaps not necessarily a bad idea--but if the human is appropriately trained, they too will already likely know the problem. The risk of bringing computers into the process is that you will inevitably teach doctors and nurses to ignore their own training and instincts and just do what the computer says--the insurance companies, the health care providers, the lawyers will all insist on it implicitly or explicitly. But when AIs get stuff wrong, they get it waaay wrong. And in the 5% of cases where the computer is waaay wrong, you will find outcomes get worse, not better.
- bsder 13y ago
  > And in the 5% of cases where the computer is waaay wrong, you will find outcomes get worse, not better. The problem is that doctors actually get it wrong more than this. There is a reason why even a checklist improves the care that doctors give: http://www.angina.com/safety-issues/checklists-reminders-doctors-icus-reduce-deaths/576/ http://www.angina.com/safety-issues/checklists-reminders-doc...

skywhopper 13y ago

The problem is not so much identifying problems based on symptoms, but in getting the computer to understand the symptoms. You need humans to talk to patients, to assess the patient's physical appearance and behavior, to look into noses, throats, eyes, and ears and judge what they see, to feel joints and organs and muscles, to understand the hundreds of ways patients might describe their own symptoms, and to recognize symptoms the patients themselves may not. The humans required to perform all of these tasks could then quantify all that data into something a computer can comprehend and let it make the diagnosis--and that's perhaps not necessarily a bad idea--but if the human is appropriately trained, they too will already likely know the problem. The risk of bringing computers into the process is that you will inevitably teach doctors and nurses to ignore their own training and instincts and just do what the computer says--the insurance companies, the health care providers, the lawyers will all insist on it implicitly or explicitly. But when AIs get stuff wrong, they get it waaay wrong. And in the 5% of cases where the computer is waaay wrong, you will find outcomes get worse, not better.

bsder 13y ago
> And in the 5% of cases where the computer is waaay wrong, you will find outcomes get worse, not better. The problem is that doctors actually get it wrong more than this. There is a reason why even a checklist improves the care that doctors give: http://www.angina.com/safety-issues/checklists-reminders-doctors-icus-reduce-deaths/576/ http://www.angina.com/safety-issues/checklists-reminders-doc...