Hacker News Reader

This is the same argument that is often put forward in relation to accident rates for self driving vehicles. ML only needs to outperform humans.

The problem with this argument is it glosses over that fact that in the tail, where the ML is making a wrong decision, sometimes a catastrophic one, the behaviour of the ML algorithm is not well understood. How can we deploy something in such safety critical applications that we do not fully understand?

View on HN

Excellent point. That is what the lengthy prospective study phase as well as periodic auditing after deployment are for.

Please also note that there are several important differences as compared to the automotive industry. First, one could argue that the task at hand is trivial as compared to the self driving car. We are operating in a heavily constrained setting with much better understood data inputs and a hundred-year history of medical professionals trying to classify and systematize them. Moreover, our task is not time-critical. It sometimes takes more than a week for such an image to be reported on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com