Some friends of mine are worried that robots can take the job of doctors.

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

NeuResurgens

Newbie!
7+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2015
Messages
2,960
Reaction score
3,869
One cited that some computer more accurately predicted lung cancer diagnoses than doctors did, while another mentioned that computers have taken over the job of stock traders.

I personally think that the human factors in medicine are too much for any computer to handle. Sure, a machine can take in data and provide diagnostic options. But how could computers possibly replace a human when it comes to consulting with patients, interpreting the history, suggesting courses of action and then providing the best treatment option with regards to the patient's wishes and the patient's condition? Not to mention surgeries and managing traumas. Just doesn't seem realistic now or in the future.

Thoughts?

Members don't see this ad.
 
One cited that some computer more accurately predicted lung cancer diagnoses than doctors did, while another mentioned that computers have taken over the job of stock traders.

I personally think that the human factors in medicine are too much for any computer to handle. Sure, a machine can take in data and provide diagnostic options. But how could computers possibly replace a human when it comes to consulting with patients, interpreting the history, suggesting courses of action and then providing the best treatment option with regards to the patient's wishes and the patient's condition? Not to mention surgeries and managing traumas. Just doesn't seem realistic now or in the future.

Thoughts?

I discussed this on a thread in Allopathic. At this stage, computers cannot replace doctors, but they can very well replace nurses/mid-levels etc. This is simply because mid-levels execute the tasks instructed by the main decision maker (i.e. the physician), and computers just follow instructions determined by the programmer (also by the physician). So if anything, computers can replace mid-levels altogether and eradicate the mid-level encroachment.

However, there is a possibility in the distant future that humans can create machines smarter than they are (and in turn create even smarter machines, leading to a cascade effect called singularity). That would mean the end of human civilizations when such rational and sentient machines are created and become predominant ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Technology is many, many years away from being advanced enough to where a computer could take in all the necessary info, compute a DDx, and determine the most likely cause. Doctors are safe.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
At the end of the day, the "final call" will always have to be from a doctor.
 
The OP is an idiot.
 
The OP is an idiot.

Irrelevant post and name-calling. When I grow up, I want to be just as cool as you.

One cited that some computer more accurately predicted lung cancer diagnoses than doctors did, while another mentioned that computers have taken over the job of stock traders.

I personally think that the human factors in medicine are too much for any computer to handle. Sure, a machine can take in data and provide diagnostic options. But how could computers possibly replace a human when it comes to consulting with patients, interpreting the history, suggesting courses of action and then providing the best treatment option with regards to the patient's wishes and the patient's condition? Not to mention surgeries and managing traumas. Just doesn't seem realistic now or in the future.

Thoughts?

Robots will soon take over fast-food workers. The only people that get to keep their jobs are the big boys. Just as the 2nd post said. One day, robots will take over the nurses. The carousels in the hospital pharmacies are already replacing the pharm techs.
 
The OP is an idiot.

tumblr_mak646775Q1rf8zido1_500.jpg


Robots will soon take over fast-food workers. The only people that get to keep their jobs are the big boys. Just as the 2nd post said. One day, robots will take over the nurses. The carousels in the hospital pharmacies are already replacing the pharm techs.

Yep - their (fast food cashiers) jobs are much more rudimentary though. I think reaching the level of doctors would require a much more thorough understanding of medical science, such that no variables are unaccounted for. This would mean understanding of the entire genome, effects of the alterations of individual genes, etc. which often underlie variations between patients.

I do think it's interesting that a similar thread recently surfaced in pre-allo - seems automation is getting more attention.
 
Irrelevant post and name-calling. When I grow up, I want to be just as cool as you.



Robots will soon take over fast-food workers. The only people that get to keep their jobs are the big boys. Just as the 2nd post said. One day, robots will take over the nurses. The carousels in the hospital pharmacies are already replacing the pharm techs.

Look out, Sky Net is coming for us. Let me guess, you're the last Arnold fan and you're trying to promote "Terminator I'm Old As ****".
 
Computers and robots are the least of doctors' fears...most of them are more scared of nurses and PAs and the other types of clinicians that a free market could potentially provide who could very realistically handle many of the tasks that doctors claim the need to have a monopoly on.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think reaching the level of doctors would require a much more thorough understanding of medical science, such that no variables are unaccounted for. This would mean understanding of the entire genome, effects of the alterations of individual genes, etc. which often underlie variations between patients.
I don't see why robots would need so much information. They don't need to be perfect to take over, just better than humans. Of course, people will resist, so they'll need to be significantly better, but that still doesn't mean perfect.

I'm in psychiatry and often feel we're more resistant to the robot take over as the human interaction actually counts for a lot. But if the robots do enough other things better, maybe they can make up for not being human and also take over psychiatry some day.
 
I don't see why robots would need so much information. They don't need to be perfect to take over, just better than humans. Of course, people will resist, so they'll need to be significantly better, but that still doesn't mean perfect.

I'm in psychiatry and often feel we're more resistant to the robot take over as the human interaction actually counts for a lot. But if the robots do enough other things better, maybe they can make up for not being human and also take over psychiatry some day.

If what you say is true, it of course begs the question - what would be the roles for career-displaced humans? Homelessness? Politics? Could be interesting, and I don't think it'd help a lot of the problems faced by society overall.

I still don't think computers will outpace humans simply because of the number of variables though. I would especially think that psychiatry would be one of the last specialties replaced, considering how little we fully understand about the nature of human psychology and sociology, mental disorders, etc. It would be hard to account for the differences expressed from case to case, and some of those differences might cause preventable mistakes.

I guess I see it sort of like the problem of weight loss - it's darn near impossible to lay down a universal regimen that works for everyone, and I think modern computers lack the adaptability to work with those sorts of variations. What I think is that care is going to become increasingly technology based, but I don't think it can become automated for a long time.
 
If what you say is true, it of course begs the question - what would be the roles for career-displaced humans? Homelessness? Politics? Could be interesting, and I don't think it'd help a lot of the problems faced by society overall.
A good discussion of all this is a video by CGPGrey on YouTube, entitled Humans Need Not Apply:

It's 15 minutes but very worthwhile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A good discussion of all this is a video by CGPGrey on YouTube, entitled Humans Need Not Apply:

It's 15 minutes but very worthwhile.


Interesting indeed. That's the issue I'm wondering about though - if almost all jobs (regardless of complexity) are eliminated through automation, what becomes the point of humans? The tone of the video makes it sound like it's all inevitable, which, if true, renders humans obsolete. I suppose it would be poetically ironic that we could essentially become smart enough to replace ourselves with a new master race. Humanity might have to ensure its own survival by enacting ethical principles limiting the extent to which automation happens. It's all very strange to think about.

Have you heard of any proposed solutions to this phenomenon? While informative, I found the video a bit frustrating simply because it essentially says we're doomed to obsolescence without discussing possible implications and outcomes.
 
Interesting indeed. That's the issue I'm wondering about though - if almost all jobs (regardless of complexity) are eliminated through automation, what becomes the point of humans?
It's certainly an interesting question. I don't have any good answers, and as I'm currently on vacation I get to avoid thinking for some time. I hope others share their thoughts, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I have already put a ton of thought into this. In fact, I just left a hi tech field with artificial intelligence at its center. I just want to reassure those that are entering the medical field that they are making an excellent decision, and that the fears of their jobs being replaced anywhere in the near future are vastly overstated.

The only people who need fear for their job are those whose primary responsibilities can be easily and efficiently reproduced and require no immediate critical thought. In other words, it's mid-level healthcare workers who need to worry, and even then I wouldn't worry too much.

Here's some thoughts:

1. Who will generate new research to understand evolving problems in the world? Computers can generate new research. Fine. But can they understand, interpret, and then apply this new research? How quickly? Understand that doctors (including Ph.Ds, Ed.Ds, etc.) aren't just assembly line workers that do the same things over and over again. Even if they were, the entry point of being a physician is as a generalist--a primary care worker who can dynamically adjust their scope of practice according to needs of any given population. If every need were being met in a given population, the physician would either revert to scientific work and research OR would find a population whose needs were not being met.

2. Describe a world where computers have taken on 45% of the current jobs. Does the economy of this world even matter anymore? Can this world's economy sustain 45% of an 8 billion population whose jobs are replaced? Who cares if you have a job if robots can serve most or all needs at this point? This sounds more utopian than dystopian to me. Closer to Star Trek maybe. Be above the fear.

3. Even if this argument about computers is inane for healthcare workers now, people need to understand that it has serious repercussions for very valuable jobs that every economy needs to retain. Do not devalue the role of a teacher because a programmer can put all the world's knowledge in an online course. Teachers and mentors are much more than deliverers of knowledge content. They can inspire others to obtain value in their life and achieve much more than they could on their own. Educators keep children out of the prison system and benefit all populations by guiding their development and proactive involvement in civilization. Computers cannot ever replace this important role; humans are much more than their test scores. Understand that human interaction (more than the basic duties of being a physician) is part of a necessary service that computers cannot replace. If you want a stable career that is difficult to replace, look to any career than involves service to community or country. On the other hand, careers that do not involve service often carry a risk of replacement along with a very hefty reward for success.

tl;dr : your friends did not put enough thought into this scenario. Physician jobs are safe, and most will even benefit from technological flexibility and innovation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Gorgeous futurism indeed. "One day the Artificial Intelligence is going to look back on us the same way we look at fossil skeletons on the plains of Africa. An upright ape living in dust with crude language and tools, all set for extinction" ;)
-Nathan
 
It's pretty simple, really -- lobby for legislation saying that they (robots) cannot practice independently and must be supervised by an MD and limit the number of supervisory permits per MD.

Whatever will the midlevels do?
 
It's pretty simple, really -- lobby for legislation saying that they (robots) cannot practice independently and must be supervised by an MD and limit the number of supervisory permits per MD.

Whatever will the midlevels do?

It sounds like midlevels are much more likely to see an impact, especially in more routine matters such as providing services like vaccinations.
 
Top