The appeal of medicine as biostatistics improves diagnostic prediction algorithms

[7331poas]

can look up information for me without my having to sift through a million notes, write a good discharge summary and find some skilled nursing facility beds for my patients.

All these things can be done by computers already. There are already AI "writers" for newspapers. And you last problem can be solved with intelligent databases managed by other robots.



The biggest problem right now is development of a proper "android" which is general purpose.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mad Jack]

Are pre-meds aware of the (possible) potential of computer science to drastically change and/or reduce the role of physicians? Biostatisticians have been working away on machine learning prediction algorithms to diagnose patients that could, eventually, be incorporated in real time into electronic health records. Although such algorithms have low explanatory power at present (usually around 20%, so says the biostatistician I work with), the potential is there and progress is rapid in the era of "Big Data."

Sure, the impact could of course be relatively small, depending on numerous factors. Or it could be quite drastic: As one computer science professor has put it to the pre-meds who flood his general education requirement class, "Why do you guys want to be doctors?! You know a computer will mostly do your job in the future, right?"

If you are aware, how do you feel about it? Does it not deter your interest? Why or why not?

I ask as a pre-med who personally feels deterred from most diagnosis-heavy specialties now in light of it.

A computerized diagnostic system has two major flaws- it cannot absolve from liability in the case of errors, and its predictions are only as good as its inputs. A physician is required to collect much of the data that would be required of a complex diagnosis, as machines can't peer into a patient's throat, auscultate their bowel, or palpate their abdomen, amongst many other things. Anyone who thinks they can replace physicians knows nothing about how diagnosis actually occurs.

 

[7331poas]

A computerized diagnostic system has two major flaws- it cannot absolve from liability in the case of errors, and its predictions are only as good as its inputs. A physician is required to collect much of the data that would be required of a complex diagnosis, as machines can't peer into a patient's throat, auscultate their bowel, or palpate their abdomen, amongst many other things. Anyone who thinks they can replace physicians knows nothing about how diagnosis actually occurs.

All those things can be solved by general purpose AI androids in time. Like I had been saying, these wont come in our lifetime. But human society is just biding its time until these things arise.

Technology doesn't need to overtake doctors. It just needs to displace 25% or so of society before things get really really bad.

 

[Mad Jack]

All those things can be solved by general purpose AI androids in time. Like I had been saying, these wont come in our lifetime. But human society is just biding its time until these things arise.

Technology doesn't need to overtake doctors. It just needs to displace 25% or so of society before things get really really bad.

It's more likely to replace physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and other midlevel providers that treat uncomplicated cases that's it is to replace physicians. And as to androids- if they are replacing physicians, chances are they are replacing a great number of other professions and unskilled positions, which will essentially undermine the way economies currently function and require a restructuring of society in general. Id we've reached that point, we're pretty much approaching the singularity and your day job is the last thing you should be worrying about.

 

[7331poas]

It's more likely to replace physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and other midlevel providers that treat uncomplicated cases that's it is to replace physicians. And as to androids- if they are replacing physicians, chances are they are replacing a great number of other professions and unskilled positions, which will essentially undermine the way economies currently function and require a restructuring of society in general. Id we've reached that point, we're pretty much approaching the singularity and your day job is the last thing you should be worrying about.

Doctors treat uncomplicated cases all the time. If anything their reimbursements would go down in your scenario.

You just reiterated my point on the androids. Like I said, once they have replaced a large proportion of people, then the question of if I get to have a day job as a doctor wont matter in a societal context.

 

[Mad Jack]

Doctors treat uncomplicated cases all the time. If anything their reimbursements would go down in your scenario.

You just reiterated my point on the androids. Like I said, once they have replaced a large proportion of people, then the question of if I get to have a day job as a doctor wont matter in a societal context.

Depends on the type of doctor. I really don't see a robot inserting an A line, intubating, placing a chest tube, or hell, even doing something so simple as vaccine administration soon. We're good for our working lifetimes, and after that, who gives a ****.

 

[Mad Jack]

I will leave it at this though- I have never heard of an expert who has actually been through medical school and know how medicine is practiced, how data is collected, etc that believes that physicians can simply be automated away within our lifetime, if ever. There is a human element to being a physician that is impossible for a machine to replace in the near future, such as being able to quickly make decisions and physically act upon them in the absence of data, to say nothing of the human element of being a physician (there is very much about doctoring that is talking with patients about options, being a person of comfort, etc). You can replace a psychiatrist with a med dispenser, but it'll probably just lead to your patients killing themselves due to that lack of human connection lol, and nothing will make you feel more alone that selecting your cancer treatment from a multiple-choice screen.

 

[7331poas]

Depends on the type of doctor. I really don't see a robot inserting an A line, intubating, placing a chest tube, or hell, even doing something so simple as vaccine administration soon. We're good for our working lifetimes, and after that, who gives a ****.

There are bigger problems than just doctors being displaced. On the same line of logic, when 30% of our population is unemployed, who gives a **** about whether doctors are still working.

Truck drivers and others will be displaced in our lifetime. And doctors will be replaced in subsequent ones. General purpose AI is entirely different than the linear programming that is done currently .

If you like sci-fi, the only place you have to look is things like star trek. (or iRobot I guess)

 

[wizzed101]

All those things can be solved by general purpose AI androids in time. Like I had been saying, these wont come in our lifetime. But human society is just biding its time until these things arise.

Technology doesn't need to overtake doctors. It just needs to displace 25% or so of society before things get really really bad.

What are you going to do about it?

 

[Mad Jack]

There are bigger problems than just doctors being displaced. On the same line of logic, when 30% of our population is unemployed, who gives a **** about whether doctors are still working.

Truck drivers and others will be displaced in our lifetime. And doctors will be replaced in subsequent ones. General purpose AI is entirely different than the linear programming that is done currently .

If you like sci-fi, the only place you have to look is things like star trek. (or iRobot I guess)

>implying humanity would willingly allow the world to become a utopia of equality

I predict we're more looking at an underclass sort of scenario, in which basically all workers are wealthy and everyone else starves until enough people die off that the remaining people are entirely useful. Or a war, as the sorts of jobs done by the developing world are obliterated and they get desperate for agriculture they can no longer afford. I don't think it'll bring us good places, basically, because humanity is often anything but humane.

 

[7331poas]

>implying humanity would willingly allow the world to become a utopia of equality

Thats the exact opposite of what I implied

 

[7331poas]

What are you going to do about it?

Its not hard to understand. AI will displace workers sequentially in the order that programmers can do their job more efficiently. Once general purpose AI has displaced a large enough sect of the population, whether or not doctors are still employable is moot. At that point we have societal problems to deal with in terms of employment. If humanity is in shambles because 30% of society is in abject poverty then a doctor's job security isnt the most pressing problem.

 

[Mad Jack]

Thats the exact opposite of what I implied

Seemed as if you were implying Star Trek would happen. Which, I guess it could, in the sense that there was a massive nuclear genocide before the Federation was founded.

 

[7331poas]

Seemed as if you were implying Star Trek would happen. Which, I guess it could, in the sense that there was a massive nuclear genocide before the Federation was founded.

I meant star trek in the sense that people will be displaced from jobs. Whether or not humanity will thrive is more interesting question.

 

[Mad Jack]

I meant star trek in the sense that people will be displaced from jobs. Whether or not humanity will thrive is more interesting question.

Its not hard to understand. AI will displace workers sequentially in the order that programmers can do their job more efficiently. Once general purpose AI has displaced a large enough sect of the population, whether or not doctors are still employable is moot. At that point we have societal problems to deal with in terms of employment. If humanity is in shambles because 30% of society is in abject poverty then a doctor's job security isnt the most pressing problem.

It's pretty simple, there'll be massive societal upheaval and a bunch of people will die. Not that hard to predict. With a large section of the population unemployed, the very companies that put them out of business will flounder as the companies they once supplied struggle to maintain profit margins with a population that grows ever poorer and a government that is sapped dry by spending on public benefits. The companies that put people out of jobs will themselves go out of business, and commerce will slowly and inexorably die because it relies on consumption that cannot exist if there are less and less people able to consume. It will literally be the end of civilization, and war, famine, and death will be the result. I'm just thrilled that we've got at least 20-30 years before SHTF, and I'll have enough investments to do well for myself and a nice off-the-grid farm (or be dead) by then, so it's all good from my perspective. With no kids likely in my future, I'll leave that to your children and theirs to figure out.

 

[7331poas]

It's pretty simple, there'll be massive societal upheaval and a bunch of people will die. Not that hard to predict. With a large section of the population unemployed, the very companies that put them out of business will flounder as the companies they once supplied struggle to maintain profit margins with a population that grows ever poorer and a government that is sapped dry by spending on public benefits. The companies that put people out of jobs will themselves go out of business, and commerce will slowly and inexorably die because it relies on consumption that cannot exist if there are less and less people able to consume. It will literally be the end of civilization, and war, famine, and death will be the result. I'm just thrilled that we've got at least 20-30 years before SHTF, and I'll have enough investments to do well for myself and a nice off-the-grid farm (or be dead) by then, so it's all good from my perspective. With no kids likely in my future, I'll leave that to your children and theirs to figure out.

The only saving grace would be social uprising that leads to massive taxation of corporations leading to distributed wealth to the masses. Hard to believe that will occur.

But your correct, im pretty sure that I will have accumulated enough wealth before that happens 50ish years from now.

 

[Mad Jack]

The only saving grace would be social uprising that leads to massive taxation of corporations leading to distributed wealth to the masses. Hard to believe that will occur.

But your correct, im pretty sure that I will have accumulated enough wealth before that happens 50ish years from now.

It's easy enough to put down an uprising if you've got militarized robots on your side. In 30 years, we should have autonomous drones capable of all sorts of insanity. In 50 years? Human soldiers might be damn near obsolete for most missions. Got an uprising? Send in robots equipped with tear gas, deafening loudspeakers, incredibly bright spotlights that are blinding to look in the general direction of, and microwave emitters that cause the sensation of your skin burning if you don't leave the area. The potential of drones as a method of crowd dispersal are pretty immense, and they could essentially form a tireless force. Also, given that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to things used on your own citizens, they could utilize certain things that the military has already provided proof-of-concept of, such as blinding lasers that can automatically focus on the eyes of targets (a Humvee-mounted anti-sniper device was developed with this capability by DARPA, but was never deployed because of good 'ol Geneva). Throw four high-power autotargetting lasers on a quadcopter? You could temporarily or permanently blind an entire crowd in minutes. That's the sort of thing no one would want to develop today, but a desperate government could throw it together with today's technology to deal with a situation that got out of hand, along with numerous other suppression means ("Do you like being able to see? Then you'd better not protest, because that's how you lose your ability to see.). If it's a serious one, send out robots designed to kill. The trouble with automation is that it has the potential to take the humanity out of everything, even war.

 

[7331poas]

It's easy enough to put down an uprising if you've got militarized robots on your side. In 30 years, we should have autonomous drones capable of all sorts of insanity. In 50 years? Human soldiers might be damn near obsolete for most missions. Got an uprising? Send in robots equipped with tear gas, deafening loudspeakers, incredibly bright spotlights that are blinding to look in the general direction of, and microwave emitters that cause the sensation of your skin burning if you don't leave the area. The potential of drones as a method of crowd dispersal are pretty immense, and they could essentially form a tireless force. Also, given that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to things used on your own citizens, they could utilize certain things that the military has already provided proof-of-concept of, such as blinding lasers that can automatically focus on the eyes of targets (a Humvee-mounted anti-sniper device was developed with this capability by DARPA, but was never deployed because of good 'ol Geneva). Throw four high-power autotargetting lasers on a quadcopter? You could temporarily or permanently blind an entire crowd in minutes. That's the sort of thing no one would want to develop today, but a desperate government could throw it together with today's technology to deal with a situation that got out of hand, along with numerous other suppression means ("Do you like being able to see? Then you'd better not protest, because that's how you lose your ability to see.). If it's a serious one, send out robots designed to kill. The trouble with automation is that it has the potential to take the humanity out of everything, even war.

The automated cars coming out today and in the next decade are the biggest advancement on this front I think. That technology can be adapted to anything and it has solved the point A ---> point B problem

 

[Lucca]

Lol this thread got interesting pretty quick