Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rofel_Wodring t1_jdh72td wrote

Physician and other medical generalists as a profession is permanently coming to an end. For a few years it'll be nurses and specialist techs doing the tasks an AI assigns, then robotics catches up. But the 'unaugmented humans make any medical decisions, even for themselves' era is coming to an end.

101

SoulGuardian55 t1_jdh9576 wrote

Some people will still believe that AI should not be given the diagnosis of patients. Because no matter how it improves and develops, "mistakes will creep into it, or there will be from beginning, costing patients lives."

I put forward a counter question to this thesis: "If it does not fit, then what is better? Human doctors also make mistakes more than once, which costs people their lives."

72

SoylentRox t1_jdilp67 wrote

Or another way to put it, the mistake RATE is probably significantly lower for even relatively crude AI. Human doctors make a very large error rate, it may be 30 percent plus. Wrong diagnosis, suboptimal prescription, failure to consider relevant life threatening issues by overly focusing on the chief complaint.

(I define "error" by any medical treatment that is measurably less effective than the current gold standard, for all issues the patient has)

If known anti aging drugs work, human doctors commit essentially a 100 percent error rate by failing to prescribe them.

Current AI can fail in certain situations, so I think human doctors and other AI should be checking their work, but yeah, if you want to live get an AI doctor.

20

DolanDukIsMe t1_jdj8zre wrote

No literally. My mom died due to the fact of bullshit like racism and apathy. Fuck human doctors man lol.

6

Mapleson_Phillips t1_jdi9ryh wrote

Human doctors ability deteriorated with age, not improves with experience as their knowledge base keeps getting more out of date. Of course they over value their own ability.

5

SoylentRox t1_jdimfgh wrote

And rigged it where new doctors aren't trained in sufficient numbers, meaning that even bad doctors so long as they meet some low bar can continue practicing until age 70 or 80 or higher.

7

Rofel_Wodring t1_jdhd63i wrote

I'm sympathetic to the argument that we should still have make-work jobs for unaugmented humans so that they don't become completely passive, but jobs where there are actual lives on the line like civil engineer and prosecutor and physician and teacher ain't it.

3

Queue_Bit t1_jdhnb6u wrote

If society gets to a point where we don't need people to work anymore and society makes me do useless busy work I am gonna lose my mind.

31

Mapleson_Phillips t1_jdibd5r wrote

You’re still sane? I guess you haven’t brushed against middle-management very much. Make-work jobs, indeed.

10

Rofel_Wodring t1_jdhs227 wrote

I agree, but a lot of people get self-righteous and xenophobic and essentialist at the idea of humans being better off on a moral and intellectual level at not having to work. I'm tired of those people derailing discussions of the future, so I find it easier just to humor their vision of the future that's just 'Jetsons, but as an adult dramedy'.

5

Professional-Welder9 t1_jdlizpb wrote

People at meaning to the work they do and expect others to do the same for some reason. They've gotten used to working shitty jobs and want you to do so as well sadly.

1

Professional-Welder9 t1_jdlivbt wrote

Literally this. Some people find meaning in simply working but I don't want them coming for me if ai does remove the need to work. I can find better ways to better myself.

1

SgathTriallair t1_jdhqfom wrote

I am so opposed to make-work jobs. If we can support all of humanity then we MUST do so. People can take up hobbies (and should be encouraged to) like painting and running.

As for the fact that it will one day be immoral to let humans do work which puts them in charge of human life, instead of leaving it to a more competent computer, I completely agree.

12

AaronBurrSer t1_jdi87x3 wrote

The make-work jobs will just be for poor people. And it won’t be the jobs you posited. Making work for the sake of work will only be used to further the distance between classes.

Automating jobs and giving them to AI should be an equalizer

3

Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_jdibyhi wrote

They won't become passive, they will become revolutionary.

People really don't get what happens when people become disollutioned..

2

Professional-Welder9 t1_jdlj2jl wrote

I crave for no work. I don't find meaning in being forced to work to live.

1

Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_jdn5mic wrote

Same.. but the issue is at the start people will just lose their jobs.. they won't receive recompense. Then they will have their homes and things taken away by collection due to their unresolved debt and being unable to pay it. If the implementation of a solution isn't fast enough, people will decide its better to burn it all down and hope in the next system they get something better.

1

bactchan t1_jdj7oda wrote

This is a bad take. If people FIND joy in working that's one thing but make work just for its own sake is what we have now and it's bullshit. Society at large should equally benefit from the advancement of automation, and be free to choose how they spend time without threat to their lives or needs, housing, food etc. Imagine how many people might discover and innovate in the arts with the benefits of extra free time, better mental health from lack of constant existential crises, and generative AI tools to help them hone a skill or craft.

2

Glad_Laugh_5656 t1_jdi0rdq wrote

Teachers have lines on the line? Tf?

1

FaceDeer t1_jdifph6 wrote

It's harder for an individual teacher to screw up someone's life through incompetence, but collectively they're rather important for setting up the foundations of who children are and what they become.

It's a tricky thing to argue for changes, though, since it takes a long time to determine the outcome of any experiments. With doctors and prosecutors the outcomes are much quicker and often much clearer.

5

SoylentRox t1_jdilyc7 wrote

A personalized AI tutor and a curriculum with objective measurements, where once a student scores high enough they finish, would probably make teachers fairly unnecessary other than as a "hall monitor" to oversee groups of kids on their devices being taught by AI.

7

FaceDeer t1_jdinshj wrote

That's the easy part, though. Coming up with that curriculum and determining what objective measurements count as "finished" is the hard part. You still need to tell the AI what it is that you want it to teach the children.

1

SoylentRox t1_jdipsfx wrote

I mean you could simply grab a heap of exams the school district already gave and the standardized tests and just use that. Not saying this is an optimal standard but it's what we already use.

3

Rofel_Wodring t1_jdj1ii8 wrote

I am positive that an AI will do a better job of coming up with a useful curriculum than a non-augmented human could. Why? Because curriculums inherently have a lot of waste to them. It is impossible to design, let alone teach in accordance with, a curriculum that is suitable for a child that's slightly behind or some already knows the topic when you have to teach 20 of them. The result? Students increasingly falling behind with smarter or more experienced children

Like, there's a reason why language textbooks tend to be corny AF, like I'm taking a Differential Equations course designed by Sesame Street. Because both children and adults are the intended audience, and textbooks can't adjust their internal language to accommodate both.

2

Rofel_Wodring t1_jdj11wl wrote

>It's a tricky thing to argue for changes, though, since it takes a long time to determine the outcome of any experiments.

Not if the improvement is immediate and profound, and it will be. The AI doesn't even need to be super-advanced, though it will inevitably be. Just being able to personalize instruction for individual students would vastly improve the quality. And once we have 10-year old kids from poorer schools beating private-school non-AI-taught teenagers in math contests, I expect for AI to completely infiltrate education. If it hasn't already.

1

Strike_Thanatos t1_jdixief wrote

My view has always been that the need for admiration will drive us to become a culture of artists and athletes. I mean, that's kind of what happens to rich people when they stop caring about money. They pick up hobbies and try to spend time with others. And really, how do people expect to get laid if they don't do something cool when they can. Though there will be people whose "something cool" will be competitive gaming or streaming or something, but a truly post-scarcity society will have much more opportunities to maintain fitness.

1

Tyrannus_ignus t1_jdhgg90 wrote

if you are worried about redundant peoples being too passive in a new society you could systematically remove them by putting them in the military.

−2

Rofel_Wodring t1_jdhtpij wrote

As someone who was in the military: lmao. The only time I had a non-punitive work ethic was when I was promised time off for finishing a task early. I became lazier and more cynical because of my service. Like everyone else.

Surely we can think of something better.

4

claushauler t1_jdhl0br wrote

Or using the military to systematically remove them. 50/50 chance it breaks either way.

3

Ok-Let1086 t1_jdi0ysj wrote

People will learn with time and experience that AI will probably make much less mistakes than humans.

3

mckirkus t1_jdjwdqw wrote

Self driving cars would save thousands of lives but they're not going to allow it. The difference here is that MDs will use it secretly.

2

The_Flying_Stoat t1_jdkop7t wrote

I know an MD, very easy to imagine her using a copilot-like system while doing her charting and such. Would make the job both faster and less stressful.

2

Whispering-Depths t1_jdi3p3g wrote

interestingly you can build the AI in a redundant way so that it asks itself "what else could this be?" "What other tests could be made here?" "What is the likelihood that the patient will survive x many minutes/hours/days/months/etc for these tests that need to be made for us to be sure so that we can make the least damaging and most accurate diagnosis and treatment cycle?"

But honestly it's probably just gonna be a standardized "Okay, step in the ultrasound + electromagnetic etc imaging pod" and it will do like a couple swoops and use AI to build an image of your entire body, then make recommendations and stuff based on that.

3

SoylentRox t1_jdim903 wrote

Same for humans. Tv shows like ER where they ask for a CBC and chem7 every time...

1

even_less_resistance t1_jdi4rw9 wrote

Why did you call the AI “he”?

2

ddeeppiixx t1_jdj3l15 wrote

If your mother tongue have gendered objects, sometimes you tend to use he/she unconsciously.. for example in French AI is feminine while in Arabic it’s masculine.

11

YobaiYamete t1_jdjn0zr wrote

Why do we call ships she etc? People gender stuff all the time

4

even_less_resistance t1_jdjnzl9 wrote

I was just curious if they felt it has a masculine vibe or not I wasn’t making a value judgment. I thought the POV on different languages gendering nouns by default was a good one and I hadn’t considered it. Not all questions are in bad faith.

1

begaterpillar t1_jdj27c6 wrote

i would just use gender neuteral terminology until/if they decide to gender themselves. not it,they them

2

econpol t1_jdkde9p wrote

Medical errors are the number three cause of death in the US. AI is unstoppable.

2

begaterpillar t1_jdj1z6v wrote

this is the self driving car argument all over again. i suspect it will follow a similar trajectory

1

Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_jdibox6 wrote

The issue is accountability. If a doctor gives a bad diagnosis, you can sue them and receive some kind of recompense. Who takes responsibility when the ai amputates both your legs, when all you have is a leg cramp?

0

SoylentRox t1_jdimr5l wrote

Sue the doctor using AI. For essentially as far as we can imagine, a human doctor will still be on paper the one practicing medicine. They are just using AI as a tool to be more productive.

As the AI gets stronger and stronger the human does less and less, as the AI itself has a confidence level that with the right software algorithms can be extremely accurate. So the human doctor let's AI do it all for the cases where the AI is very confident.

Because many AIs will check anything done for you, this accidental amputation is unlikely, and most suits are going to fail because exact records of their AI reasoning and wha rit new are kept. So you can just see in the logs the AI did everything possible and picked the highest success probability treatment.

11

SkyeandJett t1_jdhcx61 wrote

Until the ASI loads us up with nanobots that keep everything "perfect". It's weird to think that (much) more likely than not this is happening in my lifetime which then stretches out as far as I'd like. When I turned 40 (I'm 44 now) that was really hard for me. I'd get really depressed around my birthday each year. Last year I started to become convinced that my life will extend for a very long time and this year I'm certain of it. Birthdays seem meaningless. I'm falling into the trap of EVERYTHING at the moment seeming trivial though. With the changes I anticipate over the next few years and decade my day to day is starting to feel extremely pointless.

14

ecnecn t1_jdhiu24 wrote

Its a weird lifetime. In the 70s, 80s you could ran your life against a wall at 30, 40 or 50 and thats it game over and waiting for the end. Right now its like a personal quantum condition where all outcomes are possible.

15

AsuhoChinami t1_jdhrmcl wrote

What do you mean with your second sentence? Sleepy and having trouble following.

1

Turingading t1_jdhx9uf wrote

I think I'm most confident of this happening soon because of all the billionaires. There is not a chance in hell that they will pass up biological immortality. With AGI arguably mostly here already ASI is inevitable.

3

SurroundSwimming3494 t1_jdhzvu0 wrote

Why is it that this sub is so confident predicting that certain jobs will go away soon when it has the most vague idea of what those jobs actually consist of?

8

vivehelpme t1_jdibnix wrote

>Physician and other medical generalists as a profession is permanently coming to an end.

Nope.

AI will be a tool used to by doctors, a sorely needed tool given how brutally overworked most of the profession is already. But you still need humans in the loop if you want to see advancements in the field. A neural network can generalize existing knowledge and practices but it's still not doing innovation, research and making novel observations.

There's also a complete absence of mobile and flexible free roaming robotics that are safe around untrained specialist operators.

There's so much generalized simplifications about what people actually do in their professional roles and an equal amount of hype about AI capabilities that we're getting ridiculous flashback predictions like the early atomics era nuclear powered car ones.

6

WingsofmyLove t1_jdkbb0q wrote

"you still need humans in the loop if you want to see advancements" Would AI researchers not be the ones making the advancements? I assume physical robots would get to the point where they can operate without an operator 24/7

2

vivehelpme t1_jdlnk0a wrote

The AI researcher can improve the AI system. As in make chatgpt run on a 2015 version smartwatch.

But that will not add novel chemotherapy regiments to the clinical practice of the healthbot.

Humans are constantly learning and observing. The AI systems we use today generalize based on a gathered dataset. Teach an AI what is right today but wrong tomorrow and it will keep being wrong until fine tuned again. There are degrees of flexibility and innovation we still haven't captured with AI

1

econpol t1_jdke1gj wrote

I think it'll be hard to have AI researchers. Problem solving it even just identifying a problem space is difficult to turn into an algorithm, especially the more fundamental you go in your approach. Human creativity still likely still be essential for a long time.

0

WingsofmyLove t1_jdkf1k5 wrote

Human creativity can be replicated by AI considering its just the result of environmental factors and human experiences

2

vivehelpme t1_jdlntku wrote

It's all just computation, that's the century old original hypothesis of AI.

But until we actually see universally generalized human traits in what we build we're not there.

1

Glad_Laugh_5656 t1_jdiocr6 wrote

The fuck is it with this sub's gigantic hard-on for people losing their jobs?

The first thing that comes to your mind when reading this is "doctor obsolescence imminent" (which is weird bc I presume you don't have the slightest clue of what they do in general), and per usual, people on this sub's mouths being to water (because that's totally normal) when they see comments like this.

The collective population of this subreddit has got to be one of the absolute strangest IRL on this entire website.

6

1point2one t1_jdj2aa5 wrote

I feel like this sub is full of people with unfulfilling, low-paying jobs menial jobs that want to not do those things anymore. They fail to see all of the hard work many in skilled professions have put in to learn the nuances of their job, they just see them as overpaid and privileged compared to themselves and the idea of a technology leveling the playing field fills them with joy. They also fail to see that even if their current job sucks, it is valued by society and its providing them a lifestyle that at a minimum, gives them regular access to the Internet (they are posting on here), thus also implying shelter and enough food to live, which is a far higher standard of living than a huge population of the world.

I'm not saying there aren't valid arguments to wealth inequality across professions, etc, but it seems extremely unlikely AI in the hands of a few corporations is going to help that.

3

log1234 t1_jdhbyr4 wrote

Not an end, but 90% reduced. Imo

1

Rofel_Wodring t1_jdhcrgd wrote

No. 100% end. Not 90% as in there are still some unaugmented humans making medical decisions with the assistance of tools -- 100% gone. The specialized physicians go first, with the generalists following them a few months later.

6

FpRhGf t1_jdhhst0 wrote

There's still that 5-10% in the diagnostic process that involves physical interactions. An AI can't currently do the basics like using a stethoscope, shine a light down your throat or feel up your body. We'd need robotics to catch up for that

5

SgathTriallair t1_jdhqtw4 wrote

Palm-E already showed that putting our current AIs into ribbit bodies works decently well. As we get smarter bots more people will try this and come to the same conclusion. I don't think robotics is as far away as it seems.

5

Queue_Bit t1_jdhnkph wrote

You aren't reading.

There will be no "unaugmented humans" which is to say no people NOT using the AI.

There will still be humans for now.

2

Rofel_Wodring t1_jdhszw1 wrote

Imagine that you are peeing way more frequently, feeling your feet going tingly more often than usual, and your armpits are much darker than they were a few years ago. Who would you rather have as a doctor:

  • Some infinitely patient AI that can in minutes go through all of your medical history, compare it to the latest medical literature and the hospital's experiences, and then give detailed instructions for both the patient and staff:
  • An unaugmented doctor who last read anything about nutrition during the Clinton administration and not-so-secretly thinks that your prediabetes is caused by laziness and a sugar addiction, but doesn't want a confrontation so just says some generic homilies about losing weight. (the latter situation happened to me, as I found out from a gadfly receptionist on a later visit)
6

FloodMoose t1_jdhx43a wrote

This could be a great thing, considering the medical personnel shortage...

1

claushauler t1_jdhkvnv wrote

The resulting malpractice lawsuits will be insane. Hospitals will need to carry insurance indemnifying them for potential billions.

−2

SgathTriallair t1_jdhrmw2 wrote

They'll just makes it a tool doctors use. The doctor will get your symptoms, and ask relevant questions, feed it to the AI which will spit out a diagnosis, and then the doctor will read off what the AI said.

There will be websites that say things like "this is only for informational purposes, please seek actual medical assistance for an emergency" while walking you through the process of performing great surgery.

10

claushauler t1_jdhsuxu wrote

It doesn't matter if the diagnosis is delivered by proxy, really. There will be grave errors as a result and the resultant litigation will be literally endless.

−7

SgathTriallair t1_jdhvgk3 wrote

Doctors will still bear the brunt of the liability. If it's more effective then there will be less liability to go around, so less malpractice suits than there are today.

8

SoylentRox t1_jdinjmy wrote

Doctors commit grave errors now. They won't switch to AI until it is substantially better than humans .

3

FTRFNK t1_jdiireh wrote

If a doctor currently has a misdiagnosis rate of 15%, and an AI tool changes that to 5% it stands to reason that there will be LESS malpractice suits, not more. You're giving the current medical establishment way too much credit for what they see versus what they currently miss.

4

SoylentRox t1_jdinpql wrote

Yep. Plus in that 5 percent category the AI could be designed to inform the supervising doctor when it has low confidence so that when possible humans augment it.

3

econpol t1_jdke9wy wrote

Insurance will require doctors to use these tools.

2

Exel0n t1_jdheckb wrote

dont be so confident though. those docs won't give up their power (and their undeserved extremely high wages) easily.

it will be a long fight against those blood suckers.

−6

SgathTriallair t1_jdhr7kq wrote

Doctors? I would say doctors are one of the few high paid professions that really deserve it.

Most of the money stolen by the medical system goes to hospital administrator and insurance companies.

Doctors literally save lives and it's hard work. The people who will resist AI doctors will most likely be patients who don't fully trust AI. I think we'll have a human mouthpiece for an actual AI doctor for quite a long time.

10

Exel0n t1_jdjt26a wrote

wrong. docs in the US are extremely overpaid. the supply of docs annually is capped by the medical cartel, resulting in shortage of labor and elevated wages.

and i dont give a damn they "save lives". just coz they do, doesnt warantee high payment. labor should be determined by supply and demand in a true free market, not by merit.

0

SgathTriallair t1_jdkrphs wrote

If there is a shortage then the wages should go up by supply and demand laws, not down.

1

Exel0n t1_jdkszld wrote

what makes you even think the docs wages in US is going down. what a fucking joke.

they're extremly overpaid compared to docs in other developed countries, and especially to 3rd world and 2nd world countries.

1

SgathTriallair t1_jdl9jz3 wrote

I don't know who hurt you dude. I guess, like, I hope you get over it some day.

1

Exel0n t1_jdkt4oo wrote

and btw if u wanna over pay for the docs coz they "save lifes" then donate whatever money u want. the problem with socialists like you if you force others to do the same without others consent.

1

Rofel_Wodring t1_jdhtah6 wrote

Ha. The individual physician? The profession on the whole? What power?

0