samziboy t1_iz0pgwa wrote

The comment I replied to SPECIFICALLY talked about AI replacing an entire pathology department. I also mentioned in my comment about AI increasing efficiency.

If you wanna convince yourself that it’s easier to train AI to the level of a specialist physician than it is to drive a bus then go ahead. My point was that these problems are very complex even for AI. What exactly do you think pathologists and radiologists do exactly? I think YOU are grossly underestimating what it would require for AI to be as good as a trained specialist

Identifying a particular lesion on an image is just the bare minimum and even that is incredibly difficult even for AI. They still need huge amounts of understanding to decide whether we should treat now or wait. I can’t even begin to type out how essential these specialist are. AI will need real physicians for the foreseeable future because you need someone to make clinical judgement, something no AI is capable of doing. Imaging going to an AI to make a judgement about whether to treat your mothers cancer or not. Would you take that risk?


samziboy t1_iz0flwp wrote

It is always funny reading comments like these as someone who is in the medical field. As the other comment stated, No, computers will not be replacing any pathologist or radiologist anytime soon. Medical imaging goes beyond just identifying a lesion on an image (and even that is very difficult cus lesions can look different from person to person). Clinical context is very important. AI will help streamline their work/make things a bit faster but it will not be replacing any specialists anytime soon.

AI has not even replaced truck drivers or McDonald’s workers fully and you think it can replace specialists that take a minimum of 10 years to train?