TRANSKRIPTIO 🔗
WEBVTT
00:00:01.201 --> 00:00:03.830
Is AI making doctors stupider?
00:00:13.740 --> 00:00:15.689
Hello and welcome back to Code and Cure.
00:00:15.689 --> 00:00:19.960
My name is Vasant Sarathy and I'm an AI researcher and I'm here with Laura.
00:00:19.981 --> 00:00:22.086
Hagopian, I'm an emergency room doctor.
00:00:22.086 --> 00:00:23.791
Hey Laura, how are you?
00:00:24.280 --> 00:00:27.041
Good, wait is stupider, even a word.
00:00:27.963 --> 00:00:29.045
It's a good question.
00:00:29.045 --> 00:00:37.572
It sounds kind of a little weird coming out of my mouth, but let me look that up real quick yeah, because it feels like it should not be one, but it could be.
00:00:37.572 --> 00:00:40.222
It actually is a word.
00:00:40.222 --> 00:00:46.746
According to Merriam-Webster, stupider and stupidest are both words, and they are both in good standing.
00:00:46.746 --> 00:00:54.886
They are the comparative and superlative adjectives and they actually have a long history of usage, even though they sound kind of strange.
00:00:55.868 --> 00:00:59.384
Oh, there we go and we're done with the podcast.
00:00:59.384 --> 00:00:59.968
No, I'm kidding.
00:00:59.968 --> 00:01:31.628
Everyone's had their vocabulary lesson for today, but maybe we should actually try to answer the question yeah, and maybe we should talk about a little bit about, uh, you know, the topic of at hand itself, which is, um, de-skilling yeah, and we kind of got interested in this topic based on a recent paper that was published in the Lancet that was looking at whether or not doctors got de-skilled while performing endoscopies.
00:01:33.022 --> 00:01:35.149
Yeah, this came out of a New York Times article too.
00:01:35.149 --> 00:01:54.724
Right, there was a New York Times article recently about the idea of AI being used in the medical profession in different use cases, but sort of doctors losing their expertise at some level in performing procedures or in analyzing things, or Exactly, exactly, and so this particular study.
00:01:55.364 --> 00:02:13.407
What they did was they had endoscopists or surgeons who were doing scopes, use an AI tool, and the tool was supposed to help them find adenomas, which are these little growths that are precancerous lesions.
00:02:13.407 --> 00:02:14.771
You want to remove them.
00:02:14.771 --> 00:02:22.063
If you're looking at someone's colon and you find an adenomatous polyp, you want to get rid of it, and that can actually help prevent cancer.
00:02:22.063 --> 00:02:38.193
So they had this AI tool that they use to help find these adenomas, these precancerous lesions, and so what they did was they said okay, let's measure your adenoma detection rate before you use the AI tool.
00:02:38.580 --> 00:02:39.765
What's adenoma detection rate?
00:02:40.340 --> 00:02:46.573
How often you find these adenomatous polyps right, and it's usually around 25% or so.
00:02:46.573 --> 00:02:53.788
And then let's give you the AI tool which will kind of like help circle
Load full transcript
them or box them off and show them to you.
00:02:53.788 --> 00:02:58.891
And then let's take the tool away and see what happens.
00:02:58.979 --> 00:03:00.447
After some period of use with the tool.
00:03:00.961 --> 00:03:03.689
Yeah, they got to use a tool for like three months, gotcha okay.
00:03:03.689 --> 00:03:07.407
So now, three months goes by, they stop using the tool.
00:03:07.407 --> 00:03:09.252
Yeah, they got to use a tool for like three months, I gotcha okay.
00:03:09.252 --> 00:03:17.957
So now, three months goes by, they stop using the tool and they see okay, are these trained clinicians, these endoscopists, these surgeons, able to still detect these precancerous lesions?
00:03:17.957 --> 00:03:22.944
Because the whole point is you want to remove them, right, you want to find them and you want to remove them to prevent cancer.
00:03:26.008 --> 00:03:39.697
And drum roll please what they found was that the adenoma detection rate decreased by like 6%.
00:03:39.697 --> 00:03:39.798
Wow.
00:03:39.798 --> 00:03:56.509
So by that metric, it seemed like the doctors at the end of the study without the AI, after having used the AI's assistance throughout, when they did not use it, at the end, their job performance in, specifically in the adenoma detection rate metric went down.
00:03:57.111 --> 00:04:00.544
Yeah, exactly, and so that's this concern around.
00:04:00.544 --> 00:04:03.091
Did they de-scale?
00:04:03.091 --> 00:04:05.021
Yeah around, did they?
00:04:05.021 --> 00:04:06.384
Did they de-skill?
00:04:06.384 --> 00:04:26.495
And I guess, kind of in parallel with that in my head, is this question of like, how bad is it to depend on AI tools like this, because other papers I've looked at have actually shown that AI helps you find more adenomatous polyps.
00:04:27.120 --> 00:04:37.901
Yeah, and I think that was the big motivation for this paper was that prior work, both in endoscopy but also in other applications, found that AI assistance can actually improve the quality.
00:04:37.901 --> 00:04:49.105
And we, you know, we talked about that with diabetic retinopathy in our first episode, right, when we talked about the AI being really good at finding certain things from images and being really able to help out.
00:04:49.105 --> 00:04:56.625
So the fact that it was able to do some assistance and actually improve that might have suggested that maybe it's a good thing.
00:04:56.625 --> 00:05:07.072
But what we're seeing now from the study is that, yes, maybe that's a good thing, but it seems like the doctors have lost their own ability to do that effectively, right?
00:05:07.072 --> 00:05:10.411
That's kind of what this study is suggesting.
00:05:10.980 --> 00:05:12.305
Yeah, and it's an observational study.
00:05:12.305 --> 00:05:27.678
It's not a huge study, but that's like the question that it's raising is you know, in just three months did these providers lose some of their skills and then so it doesn't matter, right?
00:05:27.819 -->
00:05:27.939
right.
00:05:27.939 --> 00:05:33.620
So let's take a pause here for a second and think about what that provider skill might look like.
00:05:33.620 --> 00:05:46.579
Like, can you walk us through what it might be like to do one of these I don't know colonoscopies, like what is the doctor doing and and you know, and then we can talk about the AI use in connection with that.
00:05:46.620 --> 00:05:55.925
Yeah, so you know they've got a scope in their hands, they're putting it in, they're taking a look at your colon and they're visualizing the inside there, right.
00:05:55.925 --> 00:06:03.226
So they're they might have to suction, they might have to press on areas they where the colon curves.
00:06:03.247 --> 00:06:32.189
They're going to have to, like, kind of turn around and look backwards, um, and they're trying to see if there are any abnormal growths there and this is all through like an endoscopy, like a little camera light thing, exactly yeah camera and light they put in, yeah, and they're observing it on like a screen or something, exactly right right and they're controlling that're controlling that scope and deciding where to look, how to look, what else they can do along with it to get a better look at something right.
00:06:32.511 --> 00:06:35.617
Right the.
00:06:35.617 --> 00:06:48.550
Ai is not doing that piece of things looking at what was actually displayed on the screen and flagging whether or not it might be an adenomatous polyp.
00:06:48.870 --> 00:06:49.071
Right.
00:06:49.071 --> 00:07:02.074
Right, and just to be clear, we're not sure exactly how the AI was used in this particular observational study, and I think that's something that I want to get into at some point as well, but this is good to understand from a contextual standpoint.
00:07:02.074 --> 00:07:15.505
As to the task here is not just looking at an image, but it's a very active task, um, unlike other imaging type tasks where you take one picture and you can then let the ai do whatever it needs to do.
00:07:15.505 --> 00:07:18.077
Here taking that one, there's no one picture.
00:07:18.218 --> 00:07:38.855
It's sort of a exploration, in some sense, and reasoning as you explore, deciding where to go next and what this means and what this could mean, and then doing some tests, pushing on it and stuff, and so that's yeah, like I want to pause here, or I need to suction because I don't have a good enough view, right, or I like I want to turn, or turn back and take a look at this from a different angle.
00:07:38.855 --> 00:07:47.158
So your endoscopist is is actually actively involved in that whole process, right, and it's active video that's happening.
00:07:47.158 --> 00:07:51.649
You're right, it's not a single image that can be sent for detection.
00:07:52.115 --> 00:07:54.560
Right, right, right, right, yeah.
00:07:54.560 --> 00:07:55.884
So that's very interesting.
00:07:55.884 --> 00:08:01.745
And of course, our metric here is the ADR, or the adenoma detection rate, which is sort of an end metric.
00:08:01.745 --> 00:08:02.877
Right, it's at the end of it all.
00:08:02.877 --> 00:08:13.762
It doesn't account for all the specific actions that the doctor is taking, so we don't know what skills specifically are being de-skilled, so to speak.
00:08:13.762 --> 00:08:25.035
Is it that the doctor is not looking enough because they're trusting what the AI is saying, or is the doctor not checking what the AI is saying and looking enough but not checking what the AI is saying, and looking enough but not checking what the AI is saying?
00:08:25.035 --> 00:08:30.187
It's unclear, I think, from the study, what specifically the modality was of that AI use.
00:08:30.187 --> 00:08:35.366
But if it's okay with you, I'd like to jump in a little bit and talk a little bit about that, a little bit more.
00:08:35.634 --> 00:08:39.461
About human-AI interaction, because I think you're right, that's what this problem is.
00:08:39.461 --> 00:08:42.885
It's not just an AI issue.
00:08:43.455 --> 00:08:45.423
Right, right, right right, and we have the issue.
00:08:45.423 --> 00:08:52.779
You know, we have the sort of the overarching issue of a so what, the doctor is getting descaled, and maybe we'll return to that towards the end of the episode.
00:08:52.779 --> 00:09:01.284
But I think the the question that I have in this is that what exactly is the doctor and the ai doing together?
00:09:01.284 --> 00:09:07.003
And there's a whole field of study human AI interaction, human robot interaction.
00:09:07.003 --> 00:09:22.644
There are thousands of researchers, there are full conferences that people do just thinking about how that interaction could be for different use cases, be it AI assisting in tutoring, ai assisting in medicine, ai helping pilots fly planes.
00:09:22.644 --> 00:09:31.046
It could be a whole range of different things and every one of them has slightly different priorities and therefore different interaction design aspects.
00:09:31.434 --> 00:09:35.802
And when you think about AI, human interaction design, you kind of want to think about four different things.
00:09:35.802 --> 00:09:43.274
You want to think about the human involved and what they bring to the table, and you want to think about the AI system involved and what it can do for the human.
00:09:43.274 --> 00:09:44.407
You want to think about the AI system involved and what it can do for the human.
00:09:44.407 --> 00:09:50.255
You want to think about the actual interaction modality how exactly is the human interacting?
00:09:50.255 --> 00:09:51.418
Is the human asking questions?
00:09:51.418 --> 00:09:53.884
Is the human just reading off of the AI?
00:09:53.884 --> 00:09:58.042
Is the AI requesting information from the human, and so on?
00:09:58.844 --> 00:10:03.664
But then you also have other contextual factors the environment and so on that the interaction is taking place in.
00:10:03.664 --> 00:10:08.894
All of this matters when it comes
to designing a good human interaction.
00:10:08.894 --> 00:10:17.970
And all of this is to say that it might be the case that you get results like this, where it seems like the doctors are performing worse.
00:10:17.970 --> 00:10:24.538
The confounding variable here could be that it's not that the doctor is necessarily getting worse.
00:10:24.538 --> 00:10:47.345
It's that the specific interaction design wasn't optimal for that purpose you could have an AI system working in real time with the endoscopist and you know, trying to identify these polyps.
00:10:48.015 --> 00:11:02.864
Or you could have an AI system, kind of like in the background, that's like passive or more of like a second reader, where you don't necessarily get the results right away, or you could have it act totally autonomously.
00:11:02.864 --> 00:11:14.687
But you're right, like now, that I think about it, it's not necessarily what is the AI doing, what is the physician doing, but actually, like, what is the interaction between the two that is so important?
00:11:15.414 --> 00:11:28.615
Yeah, and you have to remember that the physician has more information than the AI system, because the physician is not only looking at the images, but they're actually feeling around inside and they're actually, you know, sort of deciding where to go next and making plans about that.
00:11:28.615 --> 00:11:29.498
Reasoning about that.
00:11:29.498 --> 00:11:31.523
Those are not the things that the AI system is doing.
00:11:31.523 --> 00:11:49.559
For the most part, they're looking at images, right, and so if and if you imagine an interaction in which the AI and the human are looking at it together and there's things popping up on the screen and maybe this little square box is shown around certain things and given names, then that's going to offload that thinking for the human.
00:11:49.559 --> 00:12:02.897
Assuming that that is correct, right, but you can see the issue here, which is that that little boxing and labeling of that from the AI system is likely to be incorrect because it doesn't have all the information the human has.
00:12:02.897 --> 00:12:05.724
So now the human has to work with.
00:12:05.724 --> 00:12:24.664
It's interesting to explore this more deeply and I think that you hit the nail on the head in, the AI system could be concurrent with the human, and that's a scenario it could be a second reader where the human is encouraged to come up with their own analysis first before looking at an AI systems analysis, right?
00:12:24.664 --> 00:12:26.421
In which case it's not really.
00:12:26.421 --> 00:12:30.780
It's assisting the human in a not in an efficiency manner, but for an accuracy purpose.
00:12:30.780 --> 00:12:35.307
Maybe the human can discard what the AI is saying after the fact, right?
00:12:35.307 --> 00:12:39.547
Because if the human has considered things that the AI hasn't, that might be useful.
00:12:39.547 --> 00:12:42.623
And there are other ways to do this too.
00:12:42.623 --> 00:12:47.407
I mean, it could be the case that the AI's role is limited.
00:12:47.595 --> 00:12:52.206
The AI is only used for polyp detection versus polyp characterization.
00:12:52.206 --> 00:12:58.823
Maybe the AI is only supposed to do certain things and therefore you control the degree to which the human begins to rely on the AI system.
00:12:58.823 --> 00:13:15.144
And this gets into a really hazy area here, because again, we had the same similar sort of thing with episode one and diabetic retinopathy, but the difference there was that the accuracy of these systems was very high.
00:13:15.144 --> 00:13:27.164
The diabetic retinopathy AI systems were up in the 99.9% accuracy ranges, and so you could have the AI system, just look at a picture and tell you whether or not there was something bad.
00:13:27.164 --> 00:13:51.769
It seems to me here, based on the research, that the accuracy rate of these systems are much lower for polyp detection and, more importantly, the false positive rates are way higher, which means they're going to flag things that are not really polyps as polyps and or as I don't know, like the specific kind of polyp that's like pre-cancer as the adenomatous one.
00:13:52.195 --> 00:13:56.407
Right, and so then it becomes a question of okay, how do you build trust?
00:13:56.407 --> 00:14:00.962
How does the human build trust with the AI system in that scenario If it's producing false positives all the time?
00:14:01.043 --> 00:14:15.678
Okay, like I have a confession to make, though I don't know, I feel like, if AI like put a box around something and was like this is an adenoma, I like I might trust it more than I trust myself.
00:14:15.678 --> 00:14:22.198
Like, and that's probably not a good thing, right, that's a problem in this situation, and so I don't, like I don't really know what to make of that.
00:14:22.198 --> 00:14:24.325
Like, sometimes I do feel like, oh, it's objective.
00:14:24.325 --> 00:14:29.178
It put a box around it and it says that it's a, it's an adenoma, like we've got to take it out.
00:14:30.100 --> 00:14:38.668
Instead and maybe this is part of the AI human interaction that you design Maybe it just puts a box around it and says look at this one, what do you think?
00:14:38.668 --> 00:14:49.201
Instead of flagging exactly the type, it is right, because the more information it gives me, the more I'm like, oh, I believe exactly that.
00:14:49.201 --> 00:15:04.946
But if it's simply flagging it, you're creating a human AI interaction where you're saying, okay, I got to look at this one, but it's not telling me exactly what it is, cause I, I personally just like I assume it's correct if it flags it as X, but you're telling you know, and the research shows, and you're telling me it's definitely not always correct.
00:15:05.928 --> 00:15:13.315
Yeah, and you know, in support of the, in support of the study, you know, one point that could be made is that it's actually working right.
00:15:13.315 --> 00:15:19.919
Whatever interaction design they have going works because their adr rates or, I don't know, my detection rates, went up right.
00:15:20.120 --> 00:15:25.884
So, in a sense, with the ai, yeah, they went down when they took the ai away, but it went up with human plus ai.
00:15:25.943 --> 00:15:41.525
So you know, I would imagine that there might be other follow-on studies, um, in which they compare different interactional design patterns between the human and the AI and see which ones produce the best improvements in performance for the human AI team.
00:15:41.525 --> 00:15:43.341
Right, yeah, that's what you have here.
00:15:43.341 --> 00:15:48.004
You have here a human AI team and that's not the worst thing in the world, right?
00:15:48.004 --> 00:15:51.344
And so that's kind of what motivated the study in the first place.
00:15:51.344 --> 00:15:55.876
Now the question is they went back and they said well, the humans don't have that skill anymore.
00:15:55.876 --> 00:15:59.663
After three months, seems to have lost, seems their performance declined.
00:15:59.663 --> 00:16:13.344
Now it's unclear again whether the performance declined temporarily because they had just come off of using the AI system and they were used to that new paradigm, or it was there some actual degradation and memory loss.
00:16:13.344 --> 00:16:22.601
Memory loss is a strong word, but there's, you know, there's a bit of if you, you know you lose it if you don't use it, kind of you know kind of thing.
00:16:22.601 --> 00:16:24.009
Is that happening as?
00:16:24.028 --> 00:16:25.274
well, it's not like riding a bike.
00:16:25.274 --> 00:16:28.639
As it turns out, autonomic detection is not like riding a bike.
00:16:28.820 --> 00:16:29.240
That's right.
00:16:29.240 --> 00:16:30.101
It's not as internal.
00:16:30.101 --> 00:16:32.224
Maybe that's the case, we don't know that.
00:16:32.224 --> 00:16:42.467
Again, that's something we don't know from the study itself, but the study shows that, yes, that the humans do better with the AI system when they've been exposed to the AI system.
00:16:42.975 --> 00:16:43.395
But okay.
00:16:43.395 --> 00:16:51.424
So this is interesting to me because we have humans here that are trained, that have been doing this for a long time now.
00:16:51.424 --> 00:17:07.717
Imagine new trainees coming into the system, new doctors who are being trained for the first time in how to do endoscopies, and that's like a whole different ballgame, because now they're what it's kind of like the digital native version.
00:17:07.717 --> 00:17:19.444
They're AI natives, like they're coming into a system where AI is basically table stakes, right, and they're used to having these detection tools from the beginning.
00:17:19.444 --> 00:17:28.175
And this is interesting to me because we talk a lot about having a human in the loop and obviously there's definitely humans involved here, because there is human AI interaction.
00:17:28.175 --> 00:17:48.909
But this is so interesting to me because if you have humans who have only developed the skill with AI, how do you make sure that the adenoma detection remains good?
00:17:48.909 --> 00:18:01.827
Like what if the lighting were different or the camera change or something else happened to the AI system, would these humans be able to detect that?
00:18:02.107 --> 00:18:17.423
That's a great question and again I think I want to go back to the human AI interaction paradigm, which is this task of interaction design, where you're designing what the interaction should look like for different tasks of different purpose, different designs, your task in a real clinical setting.
00:18:17.423 --> 00:18:20.859
For a doctor trying to do this, it might be very different from a training session.
00:18:20.859 --> 00:18:23.844
In a training session, that interaction design might be entirely different.
00:18:23.844 --> 00:18:32.665
So when you can actually use an AI tool like this to help trainees by not giving them the answer right, by having to work with them, and then slowly building up the use case.
00:18:33.295 --> 00:18:33.816
So you train them.
00:18:33.816 --> 00:18:34.800
You teach them answer right, by having that passive slowly building up the use case.
00:18:34.800 --> 00:18:35.230
So you train them, you teach them.
00:18:35.230 --> 00:18:39.426
Okay, this is the thing you missed, or that is the thing you missed totally different problem to solve, but totally doable, right.
00:18:39.426 --> 00:18:41.715
And that's a different interaction design.
00:18:41.715 --> 00:18:50.000
And so you're not just giving them all the tools immediately, you're helping them understand first principles before they work themselves up to using the tools.
00:18:51.282 --> 00:19:00.420
It's really funny because you know, the example that I keep thinking about is I play a lot of chess and in chess you can play chess and computer systems are way better than any human right now.
00:19:00.420 --> 00:19:04.961
And people use computer engines, as they call them, to help them with their chess game.
00:19:04.961 --> 00:19:09.459
And the way they do that is they play the chess game and then afterwards they analyze their own game to look for mistakes.
00:19:09.459 --> 00:19:14.527
Now you can just turn on the engine at that point and the engine will tell you this move you made was really bad.
00:19:14.527 --> 00:19:21.280
It might not tell you why or how, it'll just tell you this move is really bad and it's correct.
00:19:21.280 --> 00:19:24.212
Now the question is it's up to the human to decide what to do with that information and they can move on with it.
00:19:24.212 --> 00:19:35.324
Now, as a trainee, you're encouraged to not use the engine to think for yourself and figure out what things, why that move was bad, and the way you do that is literally work through and work hard.
00:19:35.324 --> 00:19:45.909
You know you rack your brain and think about what was difficult
and what was wrong about that move, but by doing that once or twice you are now better equipped to not make that mistake again in the future.
00:19:45.909 --> 00:20:04.180
And so you could imagine a simple, similar training paradigm here as well, where you have trainees working without the AI system, training and learning the actual detection task and then utilizing the tool as almost like a superpower for them to be able to then do things faster and better.
00:20:04.180 --> 00:20:09.059
But it comes right back down to the specific interaction design.
00:20:10.263 --> 00:20:16.866
But with all that said, I do want to return to sort of an overarching question that we started off with, which is so what?
00:20:16.866 --> 00:20:17.650
Who cares?
00:20:17.650 --> 00:20:19.435
So there are these skills without that.
00:20:19.435 --> 00:20:21.124
I mean, we all use calculators now.
00:20:21.124 --> 00:20:22.390
We all use computers for things.
00:20:22.390 --> 00:20:24.057
We don't use typewriters anymore.
00:20:24.057 --> 00:20:25.942
Pilots use autopilot all the time.
00:20:25.942 --> 00:20:26.625
They rely on it.
00:20:26.625 --> 00:20:30.296
So humans do rely heavily on technology right now.
00:20:30.296 --> 00:20:32.260
And yes, of course you take all that away.
00:20:32.260 --> 00:20:35.567
We're not going to do things as well as fast as accurately.
00:20:35.567 --> 00:20:37.719
Is that such a bad thing?
00:20:39.605 --> 00:20:41.494
Yeah, I mean, that's a really good question.
00:20:41.494 --> 00:20:47.603
It's like we're developing new tools all the time, whether they're ai or not.
00:20:47.603 --> 00:20:51.193
In medicine, you think about, okay, people practice without having stethoscopes.
00:20:51.193 --> 00:20:58.878
Right now, I couldn't imagine walking around without a stethoscope, um, but yeah, I think that's.
00:20:58.878 --> 00:21:09.327
I don't have the answer to that question, but I think in some situations it could be okay to use ai as a tool, to depend on it in a way.
00:21:09.327 --> 00:21:20.060
When you've designed the interaction, that's appropriate, but you still need to be able to have oversight of what that interaction looks like and how that tool functions and make sure it's functioning properly.
00:21:20.650 --> 00:21:22.576
Yeah, and also, I think there are different kinds of tools.
00:21:22.576 --> 00:21:29.032
I think about stethoscopes sometimes, and I think that, before the stethoscope, I mean, how do people listen to heartbeats?
00:21:29.032 --> 00:21:34.436
Do they literally put their ears on someone's chest and listen to the heartbeat and listen to their lungs?
00:21:34.436 --> 00:21:38.039
You know, and that was clearly not efficient, not from a.
00:21:38.039 --> 00:21:43.723
You know, that was a better way, right, stethoscope was way better than doing that.
00:21:43.723 --> 00:21:46.965
It just amplified the signal that already existed, right?
00:21:47.165 --> 00:21:52.609
That's not what this AI is doing, though here.
00:21:52.609 --> 00:21:54.657
It's not taking your light image and giving you a clearer, better look.
00:21:54.657 --> 00:22:03.154
That would be a tool that would improve, give the human more information or more relevant information, but what it's doing here is doing some of the human's job.
00:22:03.154 --> 00:22:32.499
Right, it's doing the reasoning job of figuring out if something is a bad type of, you know, adenoma or whatever and that's a different type of task, and a lot of AI right now has been about automating human reasoning, and I think we should be a little careful with that, because it might seem like the AI systems are doing reasoning, but they're not, and it's, to some degree, that's where the over-reliance comes in, because you also, as a doctor, might feel like, oh, it's giving me a nice little box and giving me a very medical-sounding name for the thing Exactly.
00:22:32.719 --> 00:22:33.421
It must know better.
00:22:33.421 --> 00:22:44.778
And it's like taking the mental load off me, right, so now I can concentrate on just like getting the best picture or whatever it is, and like that mental load has been removed.
00:22:44.778 --> 00:22:54.971
It's like you basically like take that weight off and you concentrate on other things, which is not necessarily the best thing to do, right, right right, and it's a decision making step.
00:22:55.011 --> 00:22:58.099
Right, it's a step of characterizing, detection, decision making.
00:22:58.099 --> 00:23:02.523
It's not a step of receiving a signal and improving the quality of that signal.
00:23:02.523 --> 00:23:05.132
I think that's how I think about the differences between them.
00:23:05.132 --> 00:23:15.326
I mean, autopilot is another example where people you know airplanes, fly, fly themselves for the most part, and that's great, but there's always a human sitting there looking at everything, observing everything.
00:23:15.326 --> 00:23:17.478
It can jump into manual mode as needed.
00:23:17.478 --> 00:23:23.739
You know, you can imagine a system like that here, but I don't know that we're at that level of robustness.
00:23:23.739 --> 00:23:31.000
In these autopilot situations there's a lot of redundancy, there's a lot of guarantees about the performance of these systems and such.
00:23:31.000 --> 00:23:36.415
Here we don't have all of that, and so I think that it's a little different.
00:23:36.415 --> 00:23:45.284
In that scenario you have to really trust the system to do the right thing for the most part, and I don't think we're quite there yet with these sorts of computer-aided diagnosis.
00:23:46.390 --> 00:23:58.875
Yeah, I mean it sounds like we're not quite there yet, but there's a potential promise, um, for some of these systems, especially when there is this appropriate human ai interaction.
00:23:59.736 --> 00:24:11.123
Yeah, yeah so I mean, I guess it comes back to this question that I asked at the beginning, which is grammatically correct, I'm just pointing out is AI making doctors stupider?
00:24:11.123 --> 00:24:18.577
And I don't think we really have an answer, because what we unpacked in this episode is just that it's like not so simple.
00:24:18.577 --> 00:24:36.000
It's not so simple as the human and the AI, but it's also has to include the environment that you're in and the interaction between the human and AI, and that design and the task that at hand training versus doing the actual.
00:24:36.039 --> 00:24:36.280
Thing.
00:24:36.582 --> 00:24:39.218
Right, the design of that interaction.
00:24:39.218 --> 00:24:40.973
Yes, is key here.
00:24:41.214 --> 00:24:43.114
Yes, it can make all the difference.
00:24:43.114 --> 00:24:44.137
I think that's the big takeaway.
00:24:44.137 --> 00:24:53.442
So, you know, when people have read these stories, I think I would want them to think about not AI as this monolithic thing that just lives, but specifically about how it's being used.
00:24:53.442 --> 00:25:01.061
Because if, without that clarity, we won't know exactly what the result means, right, as we've seen here.
00:25:01.663 --> 00:25:04.115
Yeah, well, this is a great conversation.
00:25:04.115 --> 00:25:08.376
Thanks for joining us and we'll see you next week on Coding Cure.
00:25:08.376 --> 00:25:09.119
Thank you,