[District5524]

I don't understand: if there is a shortage of doctors, why are we trying to solve that by training AI models modelled on influencers that spits out (hopefully improving) advice at 10x the rate of a human doctor? Is it impossible for highly advanced societies like ours to pay more for people to get trained as doctors, nurses or whatever is missing? Or to convince them to choose a profession that deals with other humans instead of UBI?

I don't think people are afraid of doctors using imperfect tools. That is the easier part. But that will not solve the problem of too many patients for a single doctor and what leads to the lack of empathy. This was a problem even before AI. It seems society does not have empathy for these kind of "professional problems". Offering tools instead of humans is an even riskier approach, not for that particular individual, but for how society tends to build trust and empathy. We tend to see everything now as a problem with a technical solution because we only have confidence in solving technical problems.

[pigpop]

Shortages of doctors have many causes that differ based on the country. While paying them more may help in some countries you also have to figure out how to convince doctors to live in smaller towns and cities and in less desirable provinces/states within a country. The source of the problem is that doctors are people and people have their own preferences and motivations for doing the things they do. Trying to convince even a handful of above average competency doctors to live in a remote region with bad weather and few amenities for more than a few years will be extremely difficult even if you offer them large sums of money (which aren't generally available anyways) because they have to weigh their own health and happiness in the balance when deciding where to live and practice.

[dfxm12]

A state should work to ensure everyone lives in a desirable area, doctors & patients.

[pigpop]

I don't see how this is possible with the use of the state or not. I mean, I can throw out some ridiculous sci-fi ideas like geo-engineering and megaprojects that give every region the perfect balance of temperate seasons, agricultural productivity and variety, access to functional and esthetically pleasing waterways and pastoral landscapes that would make them all equally attractive places for people to live but that's just the definition of a utopia that will never exist.

You're also just copping out by saying "the state should handle it", who and what do you think the state is? It may come as a surprise that it's just a bunch of people who are just as imperfect and limited in their abilities as the rest. They can't simply wave their hands and make everyone happy. It make about as much sense as saying "Microsoft should handle it" or "the Catholic Church should handle it".

[smeej]

There are lots of places that are "desirable" to a large-enough-to-be-relevant portion of the population, but not as large a portion as the portion of the population that wants to be doctors. And they may like living there for reasons that someone who is drawn to a career in medicine might be unlikely to share.

[ninalanyon]

If we trained a larger number of doctors market forces would reduce their price and also make more of them willing to work in less profitable places.

[bondarchuk]

>Is it impossible for highly advanced societies like ours to pay more for people to get trained as doctors, nurses or whatever is missing? Or to convince them to choose a profession that deals with other humans instead of UBI?

This is the point where it becomes important to distinguish two senses of "advanced", i.e. advanced in technological sense on the one hand and advanced in social/societal and especially large-group-long-time-horizon coordination terms on the other. In the former we are quite advanced, in the latter quite primitive and regressing by the day, it feels like. (But sorry to end on a doomer note, take it with a grain of salt.)

[Propelloni]

> if there is a shortage of doctors, why are we trying to solve that by training AI models modelled on influencers that spits out (hopefully improving) advice at 10x the rate of a human doctor?

The crucial part is the training. AI may very well be the solution for underserved communities, but not if it is trained on internet rubbish. Train an AI on curated state-of-the-art, scientific data, imagine the expert systems of yore on overdrive, and you will see much better results, including knowing when to call in a human doctor.

[spicyusername]

Making new doctors takes decades, lots of policy changes with uncertain outcomes, and demographic shifts nobody controls.

Using ChatGPT takes... nothing, it's already here.

Not too surprising to see one and not the other.

Also, the kinds of changes that result in more doctors don't tend to get media coverage. That's that boring, keep the lights on, politics that modern rage-bait driven media abhors, so it may even still be true that the changes we need for more doctors are also already happening. We'll find out in another decade or two.

[PeterStuer]

I remember as a kid being ill, you just called the doctor and they came to your house the same day, and you could just go to the doctor's practice hours without an appointment and sit their waiting your turn.

Now, I have to book an appointment online and the first available slot is in 2 weeks if lucky.

What exactly changed?

[jimmydoe]

Who is “we” here? Your healthcare needs are fulfilled by corporations, they are by design looking for scalable solutions with less human involved as possible.