...that we would have no way to evaluate the systems' accuracy because no other non-statistical system can understand the input data?
The Oracle at Delphi is always correct. Even when the Oracle is wrong, the Oracle is correct.
"...just fencing off the highways and inventing an autonomous system of vehicles that doesn't have this much tougher constraint...
Kind of expensive to build a second interstate highway system, though.
No, we can always evaluate the accuracy based on our current human-understandable images and scans and biopsies.
Of course this is all assuming there is something there. It might be there is nothing to find. I wouldn't be surprised either way.
As a popular joke likes to say: The best place for AI cars is on special roads. You can then make those cars drive very close togehter, even touching. Oh and you can then move the special road behind buildings instead of the front. Give room for more pedestrian friendly pleasant streets. Then you may as well move the road underground.
You have invented the subway.
Another is that you could have your car use its AI in the special roads in the city and highways, and the rest of the time drive yourself, where AI is harder to implement. A bit like some hybrid cars where you can do most of the day to day commute on electricity, but for longer road trips you can use gas.
It has the advantage that it covers the very common use case where someone says they can't take public transportation because they need mobility at their destination.
And that still leaves aside tricky things like construction sites, double parked cars, etc.
Commercial airline autopilot has a lot more straightforward job: at normal operating altitudes there are no animals to worry about, no construction or other unexpected obstacles, and few other aircraft all of which can be essentially guaranteed to be squawking transponder codes of their own, and they still are mandated to have two pilots in them at all times. This is not because airlines like it- look how fast the flight engineer disappeared once flight management and navigation software became sufficient. It is instead because airlines have learned over the decades, from a lot of blood, that sometimes you need to have a pilot ready to intervene RIGHT THIS INSTANT, not 3 minutes from now when you've regained situational awareness after zoning out for a bit- and the AF447 disaster shows that they are right about that. And the only way to make sure you have such focus and alertness over many hours is to have two pilots, so they can trade off the responsibility of maintaining SA.
And that's a much easier problem which has been actively attacked for decades.
https://www.mic.com/articles/120898/7-simple-ways-to-stop-se...
Well, if you did that, you probably wouldn't even need AI for the control system. If you know the parameters and have some control over unknowns, you want a deterministic control system. "AI" will hopefully handle the cases where you are in an uncontrolled environment. Current "AI" doesn't seem quite up to the task of self-driving. It will probably get there, but when is anyone's guess.
Wouldn't need it, no, but could use it to analyze traffic patterns and optimize flow for fuel efficiency, travel time, and safety. Those are much more constrained problems for which we have some useful tools.
Of course, fencing off existing roads to exclude human-driven cars is an economic impossibility, like converting all our electrical systems to use compressed water instead.
Regardless, today's autocars are clearly NOT ready to fly solo in the absence of humans, as the Tesla that crashed into an overturned truck on a clear day a few months ago so clearly demonstrated.
With diagnoses, collating a consistent set of data is not a requirement you can impose because of how fractured the healthcare system is. If you had great AI systems in place maybe they could be convinced to invest in these systems, but you don't and so creating them is quite difficult.
Similarly, in the case of cars having their own highways and roads: how do we do this in a way that people find acceptable? If you prevent current highways from being driven on by normal cars, you cut off the majority of people from their daily commute which is a nonstarter. Making new highways in most places will also be a nonstarter for both cost and space reasons. At best you might hope that decades from now every single car has the means for self-driving in the limited environment and then one day the government turns it on, but that also feels iffy to me.
Building parallel systems incrementally creates harder technical problems but allows you to side step even harder coordination problems.
If you shift the curve you could detect earlier and reduce false positives.
Who would submit to a test that nobody knows what it means? What ethics department would let you run that test?
Now, if you want to use metrics already on file that radiologists don't generally consider, that might be interesting.
And then they can platoon together to reduce air drag 4x, be electric and be built on a special surface to reduce friction 4x compared to 'normal' road?
I think that's called a train
It's the same problem I have with self-driving cars. We are teaching cars to behave around (and like) humans, instead of just fencing off the highways and inventing an autonomous system of vehicles that doesn't have this much tougher constraint. I think AI can do a lot of good things today, if the people trying to apply it looked to completely redesign existing systems around AI, instead of trying to replace the humans operating the existing systems. The latter is much more difficult.