[easytiger]

That has been available since the 1970s. Healthcare is not a very complex compsci issue for 80% of cases. The problem is presentation of symptoms is highly subjective and needs highly complex interpretation that no AI will ever be able to achieve and deal with the liability conundrum

[fluffycat]

No one claims AI will be the authority, it is good for finding candidates much earlier. We never had devices that has success rate of specialists on several eye problems in one go, definitely not in 70s. I don't understand what you are arguing against to be honest.

[est31]

> liability conundrum

So many programs and devices are used where someone would be liable if they malfunctioned. In a production line for example, if something goes wrong and it has to be turned off, every hour costs $$$ to the production plant owner. Similarly for robots: there have been cases where industrial robots have killed people. Accidents with machines can happen in so many industries. If the machine is wrong in 0.2% of cases, that's a risk that can be calculated. If its rate of misdiagnoses is equal to the rate of a human expert, then replacing non-experts with it will improve patient experience. Of course, there might be super experts whose patients would be worse off if they were treated by an AI.

[leesec]

>that no AI will ever be able to achieve

The Luddites are back! We'll see how this prediction holds up in 30 years.

[johnnycab]

The jury is out on whether the Luddites were indeed troglodytes[1]. If you were to apply the 30 year nostalgia rule in 2049, then we might be hankering for the present, where 'AI' and the surrounding issues are still in their infancy.

However, a pragmatic approach would suggest that any form of AI and it's derivatives, would be assistive in the medical field and play a hybrid role, rather than being a panacea[2].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17667375

[2] https://towardsdatascience.com/why-ai-will-not-replace-radio...

[wsgeorge]

That user talked about "liability"