In what's expected to soon be commonplace, artificial intelligence is being harnessed to pick up signs of cancer more accurately than the trained human eye. This latest AI model has a near 100% success rate and serves as a clear sign of things to come.
Who said that this isn’t the planned use case? The article is reporting on the results of a test, not suggesting that AI can replace doctors.
That’s nonsense.
A CPU 100% outperforms a Mathematician, a crane 100% outperforms the strongest human and a shovel can dig faster than your hands. Radar, lidar, optics, etc are all technologies that perform well beyond human capabilities.
Robotic surgery 100% outperforms doctors. Medical imaging 100% outperforms human doctors. Having a model that can interpret the images better than people isn’t at all surprising or dangerous.
It’s only the fact that you’ve implied that this will replace doctors that make it sound scary. But that implication isn’t supported by facts.
can you give an example of robotic surgery done independently by a machine and not a doctor???