It's early days yet. You'd have to be crazy to go into radiology, if you were just starting out as a freshly-minted MD. And yes, this is going to be a problem, possibly a big one.
See also: air traffic control.
See also: air traffic control.
People were saying that a decade ago, if not more, with machine learning outperforming radiologists. Today we don't have enough radiologists. What has changed since those days that one can again say that so confidently?
Some of the recent studies showing otherwise are literal junk science. They used flawed methodologies, such as blindly feeding the data to the models without access to medical histories that the human doctors would have benefited from (which favored the human radiologists substantially) and leaving labels on the training data (which favored the models.) When studies are conducted under more rigorous standards, the humans don't tend to win, and unlike the models the humans will not get better.
The problem -- like self-driving cars that generally outperform humans but aren't allowed on the roads because occasionally they still screw up -- is primarily political, not technical. A rational point of view wouldn't demand perfect performances from machines that were never achieved by humans in the first place. Eventually lawmakers and regulators will get that through their heads, and we'll all be better off for it... but the transition will be a rough one.