Nah bud, you just authorize whatever the doctor orders are because they are more knowledgable of the situation.
roguetrick@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
What are you going to train it off of since basic algorithms aren’t sufficient? Past committee decisions? If that’s the case you’re hard coding whatever human bias you’re supposedly trying to eliminate. A useless exercise.
optissima@lemmy.ml 15 hours ago
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 15 hours ago
That makes logical sense, but what about the numbers? They can’t go up if we keep spending the money we promised to spend on the 69th most effective and absolutely most expensive healthcare system in the world. What is this, an essential service? Rubes.
Giooschi@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
A slightly better metric to train it on would be chances of survival/years of life saved thanks to the transplant. However those also suffer from human bias due to the past decisions that influenced who got a transpant and thus what data we were able to gather.
roguetrick@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
And we do that with basic algorithms informed by research. But then the score gets tied and we have to decide who has the greatest chance of following though on their regimen based on things like past history and means to aquire the medication/go to the appointments. An AI model will optimize that based on wild demographic data that is correlative without being causative and end up just being racist, you watch.