[snoman]

> …when they get to the point of only rarely making big dangerous mistakes.

Are you intentionally rubbing FUD on that or am I mis-reading you? I don’t think we need to wait to rely on technologies until they’ve achieved perfection - just when their mistakes are less frequent, less dangerous, or more predictable than human mistakes for the same task.

[ceejayoz]

I'm saying getting close to perfection is truly dangerous territory, because everyone gets very complacent at that point.

As a concrete example: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pilots-fall-asleep-mid-flight-1...

[danielmarkbruce]

We are already there with humans. Most people take a doctor at their word and don't bother to get a second opinion.

[ceejayoz]

At that point, you've at least consulted with a medically trained professional who's licensed (which they have to regularly renew), has to complete annual CME, can be disciplined by a medical board, carries medical malpractice insurance, etc.

There should be requirements for any AI tool provider in the medical space to go through something like an IRB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board) given they're fundamentally conducting medical experimentation on patients, and patients should have to consent to its use.

[danielmarkbruce]

In the context described, it's acting as a tool for a doctor. AI scribes are not conducting experiments.

[ceejayoz]

The use of the AI to treat patients is a medical experiment.

[danielmarkbruce]

any change to the practice is an experiment.

[pixl97]

Exactly. If you have any kind of illness this is displaying atypical symptoms or otherwise may be rare, your life is in your own hands. Even something that is somewhat common like EDS can get you killed by doctors missing the signs. Keep a printout of all our own symptoms as they evolve over time, and immediately bring up anything that conflicts with what the doctor says.