> All liability stays at the doctor who makes the final diagnosis
Sorry, what? You’d force clinicians to use a specific technology (a specific “how” for finding their answer) and also make them liable for the correctness of that answer?
You seem to have a strange idea about the law if in the same breath as you make something illegal, you sigh with exasperation at lawyers and liability.
I did not say the doctor would need to trust the answer. Only that they should be required to ask.
What if the case is so straightforward (you've see thousands of these, hundreds a year, the entire system is built around them) that you know the diagnosis in less than the blink of an eye?
What if it's emergent, and you have no time to think, like a major hemorrhage? Not only is it obvious, but you must act now, right now?
What if there is a highly studied, routinized process (e.g. cardiac arrest) where you're managing a team going through the diagnostic procedure and treatment, which, over decades, have become a carefully interleaved dance performed at stacatto pace, and, again, there is no time to consult an LLM?
What if? What if? What if?
Are you so certain?
That seems to cover all your cases?
It doesn't. LLMs are trained on literature. Women and people of color are severely underrepresented in medical literature.
E.g., patients of color are rarely selected for clinical trials etc.
Maybe we can legislate this into existence as well?
Probably most of the time when they ignore it, they'd be right. After all, neither the NN nor themselves are right 100% of the time.
But is that other case a lawsuit risk? And we've developed into a very risk averse society.