Topic: AI Ethics: FDA approved AI Software Able to Replace Specialists (Read 147 times)
For surgery I think we won't have much of a choice the more advanced technology gets, though for now there are doctors that work with robots for more precise cuts, which will lead to more successful surgeries. But yes, at this point to have surgery performed only by a robot is a little risky. They do not have the capacity to consider the well-being of the person, it's just programmed to do as its told. That human element is also extremely important to a successful surgery. Just the holding of a human hand (on part of the patient) can aid in relaxing down patients before surgery. At this point it makes the most sense for both to work together.
My friend, when choosing the option of surgery - the replacement of the crystalline lens in the eye, both times chose a human surgeon, instead of a robotic complex, although it was a little more expensive.
I also prefer a person's doctor. Robotic medicine is too scary
.
I also prefer a person's doctor. Robotic medicine is too scary
. When it comes to ethics, artificial intelligence is just intelligence, not a person with rights and responsibilities.
It's owner is the person in which custody these machines live in and they should be fully responsible for actions of their machines.
Even if they act human, they are just machines owned by someone and they should be treated as such.
It's owner is the person in which custody these machines live in and they should be fully responsible for actions of their machines.
Even if they act human, they are just machines owned by someone and they should be treated as such.
That's fair. The reason I ask this question is because Europe is now deciding whether or not to grant robots "personhood". If this becomes the new norm, we will have a lot more to think about and it will take the idea of "ethics" to a whole new level. https://slate.com/technology/2018/04/the-eu-is-trying-to-decide-whether-to-grant-robots-personhood.html
When it comes to ethics, artificial intelligence is just intelligence, not a person with rights and responsibilities.
It's owner is the person in which custody these machines live in and they should be fully responsible for actions of their machines.
Even if they act human, they are just machines owned by someone and they should be treated as such.
It's owner is the person in which custody these machines live in and they should be fully responsible for actions of their machines.
Even if they act human, they are just machines owned by someone and they should be treated as such.
What if on your next doctor visit, AI was the one giving the diagnosis and not a specialist? While this type of software is already being developed, there is one that has been granted FDA approval. The question now is, as AI continues to develop, how does ethics come into play? Would you prefer to get a more accurate (though not 100%) diagnosis from a machine? What if the diagnosis is wrong, who is to blame?
Read the article here: https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/11/17224984/artificial-intelligence-idxdr-fda-eye-disease-diabetic-rethinopathy
Quote
For the first time, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved an artificial intelligence diagnostic device that doesn’t need a specialized doctor to interpret the results. The software program, called IDx-DR, can detect a form of eye disease by looking at photos of the retina.
It works like this: A nurse or doctor uploads photos of the patient’s retina taken with a special retinal camera. The IDx-DR software algorithm first indicates whether the image uploaded is high-quality enough to get a result. Then, it analyzes the images to determine whether the patient does or does not have diabetic retinopathy, a form of eye disease where too much blood sugar damages the blood vessels in the back of the eye. Diabetic retinopathy is the most common vision complication for people with diabetes, but is still fairly rare — there are about 200,00 cases per year.
In one clinical trial that used more than 900 images, IDx-DR correctly detected retinopathy about 87 percent of the time, and could correctly identify those who didn’t have the disease about 90 percent of the time.
The software is unique because it’s autonomous and there’s “not a specialist looking over the shoulder of [this] algorithm,” IDx-DR founder Michael Abràmoff told Science News. “It makes the clinical decision on its own.” This means that the technology can be used by a nurse or doctor who’s not an eye specialist, making diagnosis more accessible. For example, patients wouldn’t need to wait for an eye specialist to be available to get a diagnosis.
It works like this: A nurse or doctor uploads photos of the patient’s retina taken with a special retinal camera. The IDx-DR software algorithm first indicates whether the image uploaded is high-quality enough to get a result. Then, it analyzes the images to determine whether the patient does or does not have diabetic retinopathy, a form of eye disease where too much blood sugar damages the blood vessels in the back of the eye. Diabetic retinopathy is the most common vision complication for people with diabetes, but is still fairly rare — there are about 200,00 cases per year.
In one clinical trial that used more than 900 images, IDx-DR correctly detected retinopathy about 87 percent of the time, and could correctly identify those who didn’t have the disease about 90 percent of the time.
The software is unique because it’s autonomous and there’s “not a specialist looking over the shoulder of [this] algorithm,” IDx-DR founder Michael Abràmoff told Science News. “It makes the clinical decision on its own.” This means that the technology can be used by a nurse or doctor who’s not an eye specialist, making diagnosis more accessible. For example, patients wouldn’t need to wait for an eye specialist to be available to get a diagnosis.
Read the article here: https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/11/17224984/artificial-intelligence-idxdr-fda-eye-disease-diabetic-rethinopathy
Jump to: