[krcz]

While I don't think AI should replace humans in describing medical images, it can be used to check if they might have missed something. Such AI-based description should be provided only after the human finishes analyzing the image, to avoid lazy technicians just copying algorithmic output. The goal doesn't have to be increasing accuracy and not doing biopsies, it might be reducing number of false negatives.

[rscho]

Then technicians will just put whatever diagnosis in the relevant text field and let the "AI" do their job (if the "AI" is deemed good enough). I've been working in healthcare for 15 years, and I don't have a single doubt that that's what would happen. Conversely, if the "AI" is deemed not good enough, it will be business as usual and nobody will so much as glance at the "AI" results.

[krcz]

My idea was:

1. Technician writes down their diagnosis

2. They submit it to the system

3. AI comes with its own analysis

4. Technician sees the outcome, they can update their assessment

5. Everything is saved into the system

If one of technicians has too much errors in their initial assessments, it should raise a concern.

[rscho]

> 4. Technician sees the outcome, they can update their assessment

Will result in exactly what I described above.

> If one of technicians has too much errors in their initial assessments, it should raise a concern.

People will refuse AI oversight if there are associated sanctions. People will make every effort to game the system. Following that, you'll be left with:

a. Pay techs more, so they accept the new working conditions.

b. Fire all techs and make do with a (potentially suboptimal) AI system.

Yes, this is very much gate keeping at work.