Hacker News Reader

Comment by icebraining | Hacker News Reader

If the stats were significantly better, I'd take the completely robotic "doctor" any day. Why would I want someone to be able to override what is statistically the most accurate decision? It's not like they'd be negligent if they followed the computer's decision, and if they didn't, being able to sue them doesn't make up for the fact that I could have been better treated.

The article mentions we'd prefer to have a doctor "just to talk and know we’re being heard by a human being," and I agree that could be useful, but I wouldn't need a trained doctor, more like a conscientious customer support rep.

View on HN

At this point, I would welcome a completely robotic doctor.

Could you imagine, a Computer Doctor says, "I have throughly scanned every study, ever produced on SSRI's, and I don't want to make your life more difficult by a placebo response? I've made a calculated decision, and decided you might benefit from this off label drug. Try this drug for a few days? If it doesn't work, or you are skeptical of my recommendation; I have a Medical Doctors waiting for you at this hospital. Here are their resumes, work history, and patient evaluations. Just bring your ID. Money is not necessary.(Your taxes paid for this service.) Have a great day!"

Computer, "Your pain is real. Pick up your prescription for pain pills at the pharmacy of your choice. I will only need to see you once a year. If my database, shows any signs of abuse; I will direct you to a drug rehab facility." No ass kissing! No needless office visists(visits to make money?). No stereotyping?

In reality, I'm not for replcing doctors with computers; just the financial game some doctors have abused in order to become wealthy? I am definetly tired of office visits more than once a year for patients whom illness is stabilized.

What you are thinking of is a perfect AI running bug free software. You need to consider the more realistic situation that your robot doctor is using a decision tree constructed by Microsoft, and its actuator firmware are from Toyota.

You could say that about google cars (they're prone to bugs) but they have made some serious progress over the years. One might say they drive better than humans already.

Let's not forget that humans aren't perfect. We cant process as much informations as computers and we make a lot of mistakes all the time. After all, to err is human.

My point is not the issue of whether computers will driver better than humans or not, I merely want to remind you that computers aren't perfect and a bunch of people will die from bugs in the driving software so you better plan for that (Toyota got first blood already).

Me too. But I suspect there will be much resistance from the establishment. Certain things just seem like they can't let go of the human due to existing status quo. We could have automated airplanes as well, but I think regulation is going to tend towards the conservative "we need someone to be in charge" view.

It's probably more deeply ingrained in society that a doctor has to be a person than a truck driver.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com