It's also easy to spot irrational zealots. Your statement is no more plausible than OP's. No one knows whether we'll achieve AGI, especially since the definition is very blurry.
pragmatically, costs. to do it right you need to promise the data isn't leaving, so you'd need to deploy your own stack (costly but not too much). you're explicitly replacing 'people' which left or right probably don't have much support for and people already are incensed when they hear about Musk/Trump, now bring in Machines taking Jobs.
it could happen in the next 4 years, i wouldn't write it off. but all cabinet members need to bring themselves up to speed. trump appears to be moving quickly but it's because he spent 2+ years thinking up everything he's doing. i doubt cabinet picks spent similar time - they probably weren't even sure he'd pick them.
I'm sure going to be amazed if the LLMs of the future 10y suddenly acquire the ability to physically cut just the right bit of a random surgical piece, with a precise idea of where, when and in what orientation the surgeon dug it out, all that with shitty documentation. Humans will be cheaper for a long time still.
Haha. Have you actually ever seen a surgical robot yourself? Your claim is laughable. There is no automation whatsoever in any robot on the market currently.
Almost all specialties do various technical procedures that only them really know how to do. The extreme is psychoanalytic psychiatry, which are the only ones really doing nothing with their hands (yes, interventional psychiatry is a thing...). Now, you could argue that 'yes, but most of the times it's done by techs/nurses'. Well, no. When things go south, and in all places where there is noone else to do the stuff (of which there are many) docs are on their own.
Regarding surgery, I expect it to be one of the easiest procedures to automate, actually (still quite hard, obviously). Because surgery is the only case where there's always advanced imaging available beforehand, and the environment is relatively fixed (OR).
Why do you think medical science wrt complexity is any different than applied math, which computer science essentially is? People already can use LLMs to assist them in diagnosing health issues so why would it be hard to believe that the doctors won't be using the same kind of assistance soon too?
> Why do you think medical science wrt complexity is any different than applied math
I don't think I wrote that.
Doctors already use tech assistance. I just pointed out that while we've got efficient robots for applied math, we don't have those as agents in the physical world. People who do blue collar jobs are less replaceable. Well, believe it or not, but most doctors are actually blue collar workers.
You sort of implied that with your replies across the thread. And since AI already replaced part of the CS, I was wondering why do you think this would not be the case with doctors. I'm not sure I agree it's a blue collar profession. I can easily see diagnostics being replaced with AI models.
I never wanted to imply that. But here, people frequently assume that because that's what they're used to. Diagnosis is the tip of the iceberg. Most people here aren't sick, so diagnostics are their only focus. If they get ill, they want a diagnosis. But many people are chronically ill already, and doctors spend most of their time treating, not diagnosing. Treating people is made in good part of technical procedures and practical assessments, and you need doctors for that because robots are still far behind for that kind of stuff. People actually have a completely skewed view of what a doctor is.
> People actually have a completely skewed view of what a doctor is.
It could be but treating patients also requires continuous diagnostics, result comprehension, and final assessment so this is certainly the part where AI could play the crucial role.
I don't think anyone thinking of the AI consequences on medicine is arguing that it will replace manual labor such as procedure executions or psychological support. This is obviously not possible so when I see people talking about the "AI in medicine" I read that as mostly complementing the existing work with new technology.
Also, a hallucination for 'SELECT mising_field FROM borgus_tuble' is one thing, hallucinating that taking a dose of Cl Na O along with CH3 CO2 H will cure covid is another thing entirely
Is it really true that people drank bleach!? It always felt to me as some idiot did it once and it was repeated by the media endlessly, probably for clicks because this story is so dumb.
Nonetheless the actual thing which people take is ClO2.
Healthcare megacorps are buying up independent practices like crazy. All because doctors can't keep up with the bullshit IT required for insurance, state mandates, etc and that's in addition to the insanity of even renting commercial real estate for an office these days.
These megacorps set quotas and push doctors to nickel and dime like crazy.
They sure as shit will spend the money to find robots that can give you a prostate exam with a robot dildo.
Sounds good; if all these pro-AI folks could get it to complete the insurance paperwork that'd be swell. Actually, come to think of it, do that for the paperwork from both sides, doctor and patient, and eliminate and entire class of leaches upon humanity
I'm going to laugh if DOGE eliminates the IRS, but also might be thankful
We build software that automates insurance billing for clinics.
And yes, the sentiment is correct that the burden of insurance encourages consolidation in healthcare. Wrapping that away (i.e. Stripe for healthcare financial infra) lowers the barrier to entrepreneurship.
Don't laugh too quickly, because what you describe is already happening: models are used to design processes allowing insurance corps to deny claims optimally, while on the other side models write your claims. If I were you, I wouldn't be laughing. If you are laughing, then you don't see where this is going to take us.
Except the tech to do that is not there, and we're quite far from it. It's one thing to have a robot write text, it's a whole other thing to have a robot perform at human level in medical procedures. Not happening tomorrow.
Most patients are unable to communicate their symptoms accurately enough. Which is why you need to see them in person, talk with them, and examine them. Not saying a robot couldn't perform, but certainly not a simple chatbot. Despite what some papers say.
