It's like the lawyer using ChatGPT to file legal briefs... he'd feel bad and be obviously incompetent, if he didn't file anything at all, but didn't feel bad (or feel the need to check anything) once it "looked right".
It doesn't matter what the radiologist rationalizes - they're going to get killed by malpractice lawsuits. Imaging is particularly prone since the radiologists' work product and a second opinion is all the evidence the plaintiff needs if something obvious was missed.
> It's like the lawyer using ChatGPT to file legal briefs... he'd feel bad and be obviously incompetent, if he didn't file anything at all, but didn't feel bad (or feel the need to check anything) once it "looked right".
That lawyer is going to get sanctioned. It's an open question if he loses his license but he's not getting off scott free.
However, since I'm the final set of eyes judging my care I'll be asking to see a doctor who has never been assisted by AI and is in fact not a mind-atrophied cyborg. Who knows when this opinion will morph into harmspreading and wrongthink that gets you escorted to the schizo wing instead. AI might yet be paraded as safe and effective.
If someone’s not going to do their job, why does AI matter at all? Why wouldn’t they just use the same boilerplate text for everyone today?