Comment on Does AI detect breast cancer better than doctors can?
Wxnzxn@lemmy.ml 2 weeks agoEven if it were to do pattern recognition as well as or slightly worse than a human, it’s still worthwhile. As the article points out: It’s basically a non-tiring, always-ready second opinion. That alone helps a lot.
vividspecter@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
One issue I could see is using it not as a second opinion, but the only opinion. That doesn’t mean this shouldn’t be pursued, but the incentives toward laziness and cost-cutting are obvious.
anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Also if it’s integrated poorly. Like if you have the human only serve as a secondary check to the AI, which is mostly right, you condition the human to just click through and defer to the AI. The better way to do this would be to have both the human and AI judge things independently and review carefully where they disagree but that won’t save anyone money.
desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
if the court system allowed deferring partial fault for “preventable” deaths to the hospital for employing practices that are not in the best interests of the patient it might give them a financial incentive.
Wxnzxn@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Definitely, here’s hoping the accountability question will prevent that, but the incentive is there, especially in systems with for-profit healthcare.