Re:AI winter is well on its way
by whatshisface on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @11:20AM
(#17188365)
The problem could be fixed by asking doctors to put their diagnosis into the machine before the machine reveals what it thinks. Then, a simple Bayesian calculation could be performed based on the historical performance of that algorithm, all doctors, and that specific doctor, leading to a final number that would be far more accurate. All of the thinking would happen before the device polluted the doctor's cognitve biases.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
There is a problem with that approach that at some point hospital management starts rating doctors by how well their diagnoses match those automated ones, and punish those who deviate too much, removing any incentives to be better/different. I wouldn't underestimate this, dysfunctional management exhibits these traits in almost any mature business.
No, it's a "second opinion", and the human doctors are graded with how well their own take differs with the computer's advice, when the computer's advice is different from the ground truth.
And there's probably not even a boolean "ground truth" in complicated bio-medicine problems. Sometimes the right call is neither yes or no, but: this is not like anything I've seen before, I can't give a decision either way, I need further tests.