[raverbashing]

"I'd personally want to be diagnosed by a panel of experts with access to said AI."

Exactly. Neither one nor the other alone, even though today the panel of experts seems the best bet

To see how the AI can go wrong, just try to diagnose something with flu-like symptoms using Google.

There's also an issue with incomplete tests. Oh the AI can improve the diagnostic using exam X but exam X is too expensive/too invasive/risky etc, someone needs to play "middle ground"

[julespitt]

To see how the AI can go wrong, just try to diagnose something with flu-like symptoms using Google.

Google isn't designed to diagnose symptoms, so I don't think that's a very good analogy.

[mjn]

Some kind of machine/human integrated medical system is a common goal of current research. Where many AI people think the lack of uptake is coming from, besides just general resistance to AI diagnosis, is that current systems don't have great real-world usability.

A few issues: There is a lot of information available to the doctor in a typical diagnostic setting that is not currently codified in machine-readable form, and asking the doctor to do custom data entry per patient is not likely to improve uptake. Ideally the systems should integrate with other patient-information-management systems, and such patient-information systems might need to be augmented with new or differently coded data collection. Perhaps equally or more importantly, if the AI system is going to be a component of the diagnosis rather than handed over full trust to make the diagnosis, it should ideally produce "white-box" diagnoses with justification for its reasoning and human-readable explanation of what it thinks the situation is, not just black-box predictions.

[DanBC]

Is the idea that i have an appointment, and the doctor / AI come to a diagnosis?

Or that an AI runs through a doctor surgery's collection of patient medical records and highlights patients that probably would benefit from an intervention?