Fwiw, I've heard you guys aren't getting replaced by this stuff anyway.
Your health depends on you having money to buy food.
We're not talking about the wider economy here, we're talking about radiology in particular.
The purpose of the economy is to fairly allocate resources to people. Labor is a resource. If we suddenly have no scarcity of labor, that should mean everyone is wealthier than before. If the economy is crushed by suddenly having a limitless supply of a resource, it means the economy isn't able to allocate resources fairly, which is a problem with the economy, not the resource.
I'm an optimist and I think people can make the economy adapt to the problem of suddenly being richer than it was previously.
No, it's vengeful to the cartel that restricts the number of doctors that are allowed to exist[1]. Now there aren't enough radiologists[2]. If AI can solve this problem and get everyone the needed care, I'm all for it. The end that society is pursuing is a healthy population that isn't crippled by medical costs. If you're able to earn a living solving that problem, wonderful. If you're not, I'm sorry, but the medical field shouldn't primarily be a welfare system that incidentally provides health care.
[1] https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/15/ama-scope...
[2] https://www.acr.org/Practice-Management-Quality-Informatics/...
Your comment sounds vengeful to the very people you'd turn to if you were facing a medical crisis. I understand the point though, just not sure why people have to make these sweeping statements whenever someone points out that the job losses from AI might be very very rough.