Skip to main content

The Darkness of Big Data - IV Medicine



Big Data and Medicine

Even now servers and their machine learning algorithms are digesting as much medical data they can find.  They have now learned to diagnose medical problems at a truly professional level.  One problem confronting the medical community now is whether to accept such diagnoses as the diagnosis.  This is not a little problem. It is a problem with repercussions across all of medicine, from the school to the courtroom.  Let’s look at a few elementary considerations.

Tools will be put in the hands of the medical practitioner and physician's assistant. The patient may not even qualify to see a doctor until after this “procedure.”

The doctor contradicting the diagnosis is put at legal risk.  Medical research and new procedures will be undermined. On the other hand, if the doctor goes with machine learning, he/she has a legal defense built in. 

The medical schools will teach doctors to rely on the software.  This could undermine their diagnostic discipline, making them the tools of the software.  Sure, they will offer comfort and prescribe the recommend medicine. But their self-confidence will be undermined.  They will relax, losing basic sharpness with their fundamental skills.

The drug companies will become fierce competitors to make their new drugs acceptable for diagnostic recommendations. 

One consequence is that new innovations in medicine will be diminished.  Another is that such engines will strongly enhance the "abilities" poor doctors. (This is actually good.)  The poorest doctors will get better; the better doctors will get poorer, or at best extremely more cautious. 
 ---------------------------------
This is the fourth part of a series:
http://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-darkness-of-big-data.html
http://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-darkess-of-big-data-ii.html
http://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-darkness-of-big-data-iii.html 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view