> 73. However, if AI is used not to enhance but to replace the relationship between patients and healthcare providers—leaving patients to interact with a machine rather than a human being—it would reduce a crucially important human relational structure to a centralized, impersonal, and unequal framework. Instead of encouraging solidarity with the sick and suffering, such applications of AI would risk worsening the loneliness that often accompanies illness, especially in the context of a culture where “persons are no longer seen as a paramount value to be cared for and respected.”[138] This misuse of AI would not align with respect for the dignity of the human person and solidarity with the suffering.
I actually would rather interact with a "robot" doctor. Most doctors I've dealt with have been snide, judgmental, rushed and arrogant. I actually don't feel like I'm getting the best treatment possible, but I would trust AI to not have prejudices or meta-influences (like being "proud" to be an upper class doctor).
On one hand I'm a bit hesitant trusting a GP because of a human factor. Doctors may be overwhelmed with patients and your fate kind of depends on their mood today and General Proficiency (couldn't miss this pun).
On the other hand, I feel scared about perspective talking to a chat bot instead of a real person when it comes to my health.
I think, my best bet would be to keep physical GPs but build some tools to make their job more efficient. How to avoid the situation that they are getting lazy and blindly accepting all the AI proposals? I don't know. I hope we will find the way!
It sounds like your issues with doctors is that they lack basic human compassion, yet you want to replace them with "robots" who are incapable of compassion whatsoever?
It's not that they lack compassion, it's that they have bias and other non-job related issues. They also are usually rushed and busy, often over confident in their own original assessments. I would think care from an AI would answer all of my questions without getting snippy and not jump to any conclusions.
Yeah, but that goes into the realm of personal preference right?
I suspect if you're giving people a choice in the future, they're going to flock to the human doctors. Especially human doctors receiving good recommendations.
There has to be something more than personal preference if you want to sway the masses on AI physicians. There has to be some way to measure outcomes in a valid, verifiable and public fashion. Even then, some human doctors will do worse than AIs, and some will do better. And again, at that point, you can expect people, given a choice, to flock to those humans who did better.
We'd need to get to the point where AIs do consistently better than, say, 60 to 70% of the human doctors for insurance companies to feel even semi-comfortable saying "we use AI doctors". An even higher percentage would be necessary for an insurance company to feel comfortable mandating AI doctors. And we'd need AIs to do consistently better than nearly all the humans for humans to choose AI doctors independently of their insurers forcing them to use AI doctors.
> We'd need to get to the point where AIs do consistently better than, say, 60 to 70% of the human doctors for insurance companies to feel even semi-comfortable saying "we use AI doctors".
I feel like at the rate AI is developing we will rapidly get to this point, then surpass it. Doctors will also probably be "enhanced" by AI. Imagine feeding all of your data (more than a human could digest, especially for every patient) into an LLM and letting it diagnose...
I liked this one too