3 ms·
> responsible That part is kind of weird to me. I understand you want someone to be "responsible", but what do you expect the response to be? This doctor faile
by anon4 11y ago
> responsible
That part is kind of weird to me. I understand you want someone to be "responsible", but what do you expect the response to be? This doctor failed to deliver, let's fire himher. What follows? You get a better doctor, hopefully. Wouldn't it be better to have an algorithm that can be improved when it fails, so you don't have to train a whole new doctor to replace the bad one? Plus, you can have every single robot doctor be exactly as good at everything. No more "you need to find the best surgeon for X". You can have as many best surgeons as you can economically build.
The responsibility would fall on the robot's designers to improve their software, so it doesn't make the mistake in question. And you will be able to assure people that no doctor will ever make that mistake ever again. Imagining that all these robots are linked, or at least synchronise every couple of days, they would learn a lot faster than a human.
- Trombone12 11y agoIt would indeed be better if the doctor would get better every time it fails, but for that to happen it requires that the outcome of every treatment be the responsibility of the makers. Consider software security, how have they historically handled patching known vulnerabilities? Now, imagine a bug making these millions of doctors cut an order of magnitude too deep when performing some surgery, maybe because some driver error causes sudden acceleration of the cutting instrument. Forty people die on a patch Tuesday (it only happened for a rare procedure) before the makers manage to push out a hotfix. What should happen after this national hiccup?
- minthd 11y agoThe safety-critical software industry is very different from your example, and in general, the results are very good.