AI won't replace doctors, but doctors that use AI might replace doctors that don't, and I'm ok with that. Keep the human in the loop, by all means, but make use of powerful tooling that might make things better.
I'm of the same mindset. A doctor equipped with all the latest technology will be able to offer a far more accurate diagnosis and custom treatment plan, rather than the traditional "make an educated guess and throw shit at it till something works" approach.
IMO it is a double edged sword. One the one hand a doctor that uses AI to notify them of something they might not have thought of and the doctor confirms what the AI says before treatment can be a big benefit. But on the flip side people leaning to much on it and not verifying the output at all and taking what it says at face value like it cannot be wrong will lead to some very bad situations.
I can see most people wanting to pull towards the former, but cost cutting, overworking employees and trying to maximise profits will pull things towards the latter. And ATM I don't know which force is stronger - we really need to get the profit motives out of our healthcare systems.
I think it's a more modern version of what we in EMS call "treat the patient, not the monitor." AKA, if your patient looks like they're in distress, is having trouble breathing, etc, but you throw them on the monitor to get vitals and it's reading that everything is within normal levels, don't just sit back and be like well clearly you are fine, stop saying you cant breathe because my little lifepack says otherwise. Either the monitor is wrong or they're doing some hard-core compensation to keep themselves within normal ranges, so let's treat them and not what the computer says.
AI won't replace doctors, but doctors that use AI might replace doctors that don't, and I'm ok with that. Keep the human in the loop, by all means, but make use of powerful tooling that might make things better.
I'm of the same mindset. A doctor equipped with all the latest technology will be able to offer a far more accurate diagnosis and custom treatment plan, rather than the traditional "make an educated guess and throw shit at it till something works" approach.
IMO it is a double edged sword. One the one hand a doctor that uses AI to notify them of something they might not have thought of and the doctor confirms what the AI says before treatment can be a big benefit. But on the flip side people leaning to much on it and not verifying the output at all and taking what it says at face value like it cannot be wrong will lead to some very bad situations.
I can see most people wanting to pull towards the former, but cost cutting, overworking employees and trying to maximise profits will pull things towards the latter. And ATM I don't know which force is stronger - we really need to get the profit motives out of our healthcare systems.
I think it's a more modern version of what we in EMS call "treat the patient, not the monitor." AKA, if your patient looks like they're in distress, is having trouble breathing, etc, but you throw them on the monitor to get vitals and it's reading that everything is within normal levels, don't just sit back and be like well clearly you are fine, stop saying you cant breathe because my little lifepack says otherwise. Either the monitor is wrong or they're doing some hard-core compensation to keep themselves within normal ranges, so let's treat them and not what the computer says.