> I can't really wrap my head about the fact that doctors will be better than AI models on the long-run.

Nobody said that though?

If the current trajectory continues and if advancements are made regarding automated data collection about patients and if those advancements are adopted in the clinic then presumably specialized medical models will exceed human performance at the task of diagnosis at some point in the future. Clearly that hasn't happened yet.

▲

devmor 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Until medical models can contrive of unique diagnosis, this will not be true and cannot be true.

Medical models can absolutely get better at recognizing the patterns of diagnosis that doctors have already been diagnosing - which means they will also amplify misdiagnosis that aren't corrected for via cohort average. This is easy to see a large problem with: you end up with a pseudo-eugenics medical system that can't help people who aren't experiencing a "standard" problem.

▲

fc417fc802 9 hours ago | parent [-]

The pitfall you describe is not inconsistent with exceeding human performance by most metrics.

I'd argue that the current system in the west already exhibits this problem to some extent. Fortunately it's a systemic issue as opposed to a technical one so there's no reason AI necessarily has to make it worse.

	▲	devmor 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That’s not really an argument, it is central to my point. The current system does exhibit those issues and it is by human creativity and outliers that we have some points of escape from it. Codifying and distilling it removes the points of escape.