I think your Point 6 is the scary one. AI can be trained in order to perpetuate false narratives which then benefit special interest groups -- such as Big Pharma -- and this effect was already evident with examples of woke AI. Because of reducing the impetus for critical thinking, AI could lead to a mob of zombie M.D.'s, mindlessly prescribing that which the AI told them to.
Imagine if a computer hacker had somehow been able to uncover the algorithm and the complete training profile of a medical AI -- discovering that treatments were not given proportional weights based on whether they worked in order to restore human health, but were instead weighted based on whether they brought more profit to a few well-connected, pharmaceutical firms.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I am of the opinion that one of the foremost incentives behind the creation of Large Language Models was in order to allow for bad actors to invoke plausible deniability for bad actions facilitated by the interaction with AI. Recent examples of AI convincing teenagers to change their genders or even to kill themselves may not be purely "accidental."
Being able to operate with impunity is a perverse incentive. I will not go so far as to say that the top reason for creating AI was in order for bad people to get away with accomplishing bad things, but it is one of the top reasons to continue pressing for the expanded use of AI. Any activity which happens to bring unprecedented benefits to the bad actors of the world is a problematic activity.
When the USA was formed, the founders understood the potential for bad actors, so they set up a doctrine of the separation of powers in order to keep people honest. AI largely undercuts that.
Excellent summary. It will be interesting to see if AI impacts future physician independent thinking skills versus typing a question in their phone and regurgitating to follow a reckless lead.
I’ve set up an AI health chat bot and have paying customers. I’ve seen how good and how bad the information can be from AI. The problem is that AI is trained on very conventional data and consensus. It’s like WebMD and MayoClinic.com as the ultimate canonical source. Yes you CAN get better information from AI than the conventional wisdom but most people won’t know how to dig that deep.
I think Ai should be used collaboratively with doctor and patient. If the health record system has Ai built in it could be really advantageous to the patient.
I can imagine a central decision tree populated and maintained by several large models that serves as the up to date version of UpToDate. Strobes can characterize its self-consistency and flag low confidence domains. This system might even be much better at intuition than doctors tend to be.
Dr. Prasad,
I think your Point 6 is the scary one. AI can be trained in order to perpetuate false narratives which then benefit special interest groups -- such as Big Pharma -- and this effect was already evident with examples of woke AI. Because of reducing the impetus for critical thinking, AI could lead to a mob of zombie M.D.'s, mindlessly prescribing that which the AI told them to.
Imagine if a computer hacker had somehow been able to uncover the algorithm and the complete training profile of a medical AI -- discovering that treatments were not given proportional weights based on whether they worked in order to restore human health, but were instead weighted based on whether they brought more profit to a few well-connected, pharmaceutical firms.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I am of the opinion that one of the foremost incentives behind the creation of Large Language Models was in order to allow for bad actors to invoke plausible deniability for bad actions facilitated by the interaction with AI. Recent examples of AI convincing teenagers to change their genders or even to kill themselves may not be purely "accidental."
Being able to operate with impunity is a perverse incentive. I will not go so far as to say that the top reason for creating AI was in order for bad people to get away with accomplishing bad things, but it is one of the top reasons to continue pressing for the expanded use of AI. Any activity which happens to bring unprecedented benefits to the bad actors of the world is a problematic activity.
When the USA was formed, the founders understood the potential for bad actors, so they set up a doctrine of the separation of powers in order to keep people honest. AI largely undercuts that.
So glad you’re back. Missed your content!
Excellent summary. It will be interesting to see if AI impacts future physician independent thinking skills versus typing a question in their phone and regurgitating to follow a reckless lead.
I find Alter. AI to be more attuned to Dr. and patient issues than the "Big three"
AI's
I am just so tickled Dr Prasad is probably Dune fan. “He who controls EHR controls the universe. “
Of course he is. He majored in philosophy.
I’ve set up an AI health chat bot and have paying customers. I’ve seen how good and how bad the information can be from AI. The problem is that AI is trained on very conventional data and consensus. It’s like WebMD and MayoClinic.com as the ultimate canonical source. Yes you CAN get better information from AI than the conventional wisdom but most people won’t know how to dig that deep.
I think Ai should be used collaboratively with doctor and patient. If the health record system has Ai built in it could be really advantageous to the patient.
Do you really believe that?
I can imagine a central decision tree populated and maintained by several large models that serves as the up to date version of UpToDate. Strobes can characterize its self-consistency and flag low confidence domains. This system might even be much better at intuition than doctors tend to be.