There is a lot of negativity towards AI. However, there’s also real shortcomings to the study. IMO the issue here is that the AI was given case notes for a patient, but was not shown the patient directly. This is both different than what a doctor is trained for and also unnecessarily limiting for what a doctor can do. A lot of the value doctors deliver is from talking to the patient. The headline makes it sound like AI is going to replace doctors, but it seems more like “AI can do this one niche task better than doctors can do this one niche task”. The notes being used are probably written by a doctor(s) to begin with. I think the real reward here is that the doctor+AI unit should perform better than the doctor in isolation –– in the case where a doctor would have to read case notes and make some conclusion, the doctor can now rely on AI for pretty good suggestions.

Why are you baffled? The most upvoted critical comments are mostly explaining themselves and I don't think their reasons are very technical. When the stakes are higher, we should generally be more critical, not less.

That’s what they said about Enron.

Skepticism is an incredibly useful tool, even in excess.

I for one am delighted for my acquaintances in the medical field with their cushy, cartel-supported salaries to feel the existential dread of AI coming for their jobs like I have