> I also think things like "is this chest Xray cancer?" are going to be hugely impactful.

Yes, but https://radiologybusiness.com/topics/artificial-intelligence...

Nine years ago, scientist Geoffrey Hinton famously said, “People should stop training radiologists now,” believing it was “completely obvious” AI would outperform human rads within five years.

▲

3 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

borroka 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One problem is considering a solution effective only if it, at launch, completely solves the problem, for example, in the case of AI and LLMs, by coding an entire application without any human intervention, retiring radiologists, or driving autonomously in the five boroughs of New York City.

If we expect a technology to completely solve a problem as soon as it is launched, only a few in history could be considered a success. Can you imagine what it would be like if the first radios were considered a failure because you couldn't listen to music?

	▲	npilk 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Agree. And then people anchor on what the technology was like when it launched, and don't notice or account for the additional improvements and iterations that happen over time. E.g. - I was considering a 3D printer but I had heard they were expensive, messy, complicated, it was hard to get prints to come out right, etc. But it turned out I was anchored on ~2016 era technology. I got a simple modern printer for a few hundred dollars and it (mostly) just works.

▲

HDThoreaun 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

AI does outperform radiologists right now. The issues are liability and the radiologist lobby(which you linked too) throwing a fit.

▲

Eisenstein 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If you want to go back in history you will find people confidently claiming things in either direction of what eventually happened.