You made an obviously wrong and bold statement about AI having no business in the medical field
(
Chinese AI Beats Doctors in Diagnosing Brain Tumors)
You didn't read my statement. My statement was correct.
There are areas where computers are helpful in medicine (I'm not sure "AI" is a meaningful word), and that's one of them. A much bigger one which should be implemented immediately is to devise a database where doctors can punch in all known symptoms and have all known diagnoses spit out from the database. Leave it to the doctor to filter through the possible diagnoses; but a computer is much better at coming up with all possibilities. (A computer might even be better at ranking them by likelihood based on what it knows... but then when an actual doctor looks at it and talks to the patient, they may go "Yeah, we know the #1 likelihood one is wrong because of this information which the computer didn't have", and move on to #2.)
AIs aren't going to REPLACE DOCTORS, which is what the other person to whom I was responding was claiming. We flat out don't know enough about the human body yet. You can't train a neural net or an expert system when you don't really know what you're doing either; "computerized exploratory science" is in its infancy. Might replace specialists in some fairly cut-and-dried areas.
I am not going to go into the medical stuff I've dealt with in my life. None of it could have been handled by computers at this point. Much of it doesn't even have proper diagnostic names.
The cited "AI" example is specifically in one of those areas where the doctors have trouble coming up with a list of possible diagnoses, because recalling a long list is something humans are extra bad at. A competent combination of computer and doctor would do even better.
From the article:
"AI can reduce workloads for doctors and help them keep improving their skills. It would function like a GPS, while human physicians remain behind the wheels."
Yes, this is the way forward. Computer-*assisted* doctors.