>What is the specific capability (or combination of capabilities) that people believe will remain permanently (or at least for decades) where a top medical AI cannot match or exceed the performance of a good human doctor? Let's put liability and ethics aside, let's be purely objective about it.

You cannot simply put liability and ethics aside, after all there's Hippocatic oath that's fundamental to the practice physicians.

Having said that there's always two extreme of this camp, those who hate AI and another kind of obsess with AI in medicine, we will be much better if we are in the middle aka moderate on this issue.

IMHO, the AI should be used as screening and triage tool with very high sensitivity preferably 100%, otherwise it will create "the boy who cried wolf" scenario.

For 100% sensitivity essentially we have zero false negative, but potential false positive.

The false positive however can be further checked by physician-in-a-loop for example they can look into case of CVD with potential input from the specialist for example cardiologist (or more specific cardiac electrophysiology). This can help with the very limited cardiologists available globally, compared to general population with potential heart disease or CVDs, and alarmingly low accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) of the CVD conventional screening and triage.

The current risk based like SCORE-2 screening triage for CVD with sensitivity around is only around 50% (2025 study) [3].

[1] Hipprocatic Oath:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

[2] The Hippocratic Oath:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9297488/

[3] Risk stratification for cardiovascular disease: a comparative analysis of cluster analysis and traditional prediction models:

https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/...