3 ms·

Not trying to doubt you, but can you tell me in what tasks Ai has been more accurate than doctos?

mjn 11y ago
The first documented success was the system MYCIN in the mid-1970s, which beat expert human performance on diagnosing blood infections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycin I can't seem to find the paper I'm thinking of in some quick Google Scholar searching, but I believe there was a follow-up article that looked into why such a fairly simple system was able to beat humans, when it clearly lacked the range of expertise of the human experts (and was entirely missing information on some real conditions). The paper, if I'm remembering correctly, concluded that the win was almost entirely due to one specific failing displayed by the humans (even expert specialists) but not shared by computers: very bad intuition for conditional probabilities.
Strilanc 11y ago
The paper "Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms After Seeing Them Err" [1] has references to examples. > Dawes subsequently gathered a large body of evidence showing that human experts did not perform as well as simple linear models at clinical diagnosis, forecasting graduate students’ success, and other prediction tasks (Dawes, 1979; Dawes, Faust, & Meehl, 1989). Given that a majority of people (and doctors) fail even the simplest probabilistic reasoning tests, this is not particularly surprising. [2] > We know from several studies that physicians, college students (Eddy, 1982), and staff at Harvard Medical School (Casscells, Schoenberger, & Grayboys, 1978) all have equally great difficulties with this and similar medical disease problems. For instance, Eddy (1982) reported that 95 out of 100 physicians estimated the posterior probability p(cancer|positive) to be between 70% and 80%, rather than 7.8% 1: http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WPAF201410-AlgorthimAversion-Dietvorst-Simmons-Massey.pdf http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WPAF201410-Algort... 2: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.128.3201&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.128...
Houshalter 11y ago
Not specifically medicine, but here is an overview of successful SPRs: http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gv/statistical_prediction_rules_outperform_expert/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gv/statistical_prediction_rules_out...

mjn 11y ago

The first documented success was the system MYCIN in the mid-1970s, which beat expert human performance on diagnosing blood infections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycin I can't seem to find the paper I'm thinking of in some quick Google Scholar searching, but I believe there was a follow-up article that looked into why such a fairly simple system was able to beat humans, when it clearly lacked the range of expertise of the human experts (and was entirely missing information on some real conditions). The paper, if I'm remembering correctly, concluded that the win was almost entirely due to one specific failing displayed by the humans (even expert specialists) but not shared by computers: very bad intuition for conditional probabilities.

Strilanc 11y ago

The paper "Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms After Seeing Them Err" [1] has references to examples. > Dawes subsequently gathered a large body of evidence showing that human experts did not perform as well as simple linear models at clinical diagnosis, forecasting graduate students’ success, and other prediction tasks (Dawes, 1979; Dawes, Faust, & Meehl, 1989). Given that a majority of people (and doctors) fail even the simplest probabilistic reasoning tests, this is not particularly surprising. [2] > We know from several studies that physicians, college students (Eddy, 1982), and staff at Harvard Medical School (Casscells, Schoenberger, & Grayboys, 1978) all have equally great difficulties with this and similar medical disease problems. For instance, Eddy (1982) reported that 95 out of 100 physicians estimated the posterior probability p(cancer|positive) to be between 70% and 80%, rather than 7.8% 1: http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WPAF201410-AlgorthimAversion-Dietvorst-Simmons-Massey.pdf http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WPAF201410-Algort... 2: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.128.3201&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.128...

Houshalter 11y ago

Not specifically medicine, but here is an overview of successful SPRs: http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gv/statistical_prediction_rules_outperform_expert/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gv/statistical_prediction_rules_out...