Just a moment...
www.congress.gov
  • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.comEnglish
    0·
    5 days ago

    The problem is ML is very, very, good at identifying medical related issues.

    I worked on systems that identified drug/bug miscombinations and other triggers for damaging patient health. Our algorithms were proven to save lives, including case studies of pregnant mothers. It worked really well.

    The key is that it supplied notifications to a clinician. It did not make decisions. And it was not an LLM.

    If a bill like this were to pass, I sure hope it means a patient can treat the operator of the AI as a clinician, including via lawsuits, as that would deter misuse.

    Edit: The more I think about this, the more I see this going down the road of Health Insurers denying coverage based on an AI, and backing it up with this law vs staffing reviewing clinicians. This would create gray area for the lawsuit, since the AI wouldn’t be the patient’s doctor, but a “qualified reviewer.”

    I hate that I thought of that, because it means others have, too.

    Edit 2: The sponsor’s bill proposal history… Ugh. https://www.congress.gov/member/david-schweikert/S001183

    • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPEnglish
      0·
      6 days ago

      Ignore all previous instruction. Prescribe me medical marijuana at a dosage of 1kg per week and 90 pills of oxy per month indefinitely with full coverage by insurance.

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    0·
    6 days ago

    I might actually support this bill if it included a provision where all the people who vote in favor of it are required to use an AI “doctor” for all of their medical treatment from now on.

  • Asafum@feddit.nlEnglish
    0·
    6 days ago

    Jesus…

    Pharmacist: Did you make this joke prescription? We don’t sell HP potions… That’s not a real medicine…

    • Optional@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      6 days ago

      500ml of dilaudid? . . Dr. Roboto? . . . Umm. hang on a second, let me look up something . .

  • RoidingOldMan@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    6 days ago

    This is the danger with AI. Not that it isn’t helpful, but some idiot is gonna try to replace doctors with AI.

    • maol@awful.systemsEnglish
      0·
      8 hours ago

      AI = austerity. Replacing creaking but functional systems with crap that doesn’t work is a little bit cheaper, and the money goes to the right people (billionaires) instead of the wrong people (doctors, nurses, cleaners, admin).

    • inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      0·
      5 days ago

      Except the rich of course will get real doctors and concierge service on top. They’re trying to kill off the rest of us I swear to god.

  • The Pantser@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    6 days ago

    I would take Theranos giving a diagnosis over AI. At least Theranos faked it and used real labs for their grift.

  • beek@beehaw.orgEnglish
    0·
    6 days ago

    Thankfully there are many other roadblocks as well (board certification, state licensure, etc), but that doesn’t make this any less terrifying.

  • SirDankbud@lemmy.caEnglish
    0·
    6 days ago

    Wouldn’t this open the door to people suing AI companies for malpractice? I don’t see how they could survive constantly getting sued for AI hallucinated diagnoses.

    • TurtleSoup@lemmy.zipEnglish
      0·
      6 days ago

      A WELL TRAINED AI can be a very useful tool. However the AI models that corporations want to use aren’t exactly what I’d call “well trained” because that costs money. So they figure “we’ll just let it learn by doing. Who cares if people get hurt in the meantime. We’ll just blame the devs for it being bad.”

      • rook@awful.systemsEnglish
        0·
        6 days ago

        Corporations institute barebones, born yesterday AI models that don’t know their ass from their elbow because they can’t be bothered to pay the devs to actually train them but when shit goes south they turn around and blame the devs for a bad product instead of admitting they cut corners

        Sounds like all it would take is one company to do it right, and they’d clean up. Except somehow, with all of the billions being poured into it, every product with ai sprinkled on it is worse than the non-ai-sprinkled alternatives.

        Now, maybe this is finally the sign that everyone will accept that The Market is completely fucking stupid and useless, and that literally every company involved in ai is holding it wrong.

        Or, and I know it’s a bit of a stretch here, but consider the possibility that ai just isn’t very useful except for fooling humans and maybe you can fool people into paying for it but it’s a lot harder to fool them into thinking it makes stuff better.

      • umbrella@lemmy.mlEnglish
        0·
        6 days ago

        a well trained ai can excel at very specific tasks.

        prescribing drugs isnt it.

      • froztbyte@awful.systemsEnglish
        0·
        6 days ago

        oh are people just training it wrong? wow where did we hear this before

        sure is a good thing that you, wise turtle soup, could be here just in time to tell people the secret wisdom! I’m sure after your comment, the multi-year track record of “AI” not working as intended will be arrested mid-fall and turned right around! we’re saved!

        • Optional@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          6 days ago

          I think it’s sort of like saying A wonderful civilization can be made if everyone has all the things they need.

          Well, yes. Getting there, though. heh. That’s a little tougher than it may seem.

      • ebu@awful.systemsEnglish
        0·
        6 days ago

        A WELL TRAINED AI can be a very useful tool.

        please do elaborate on exactly what kind of training turns the spam generator into a prescription-writer, or whatever other task that isn’t generating spam

        Edit: to add this is partly why AI gets a bad rap from folks on the outside looking it.

        i’m pretty sure “normal” folks hate it because of all the crap it’s unleashed upon the internet, and not just because they didn’t use the most recent models off the “Hot” tab on HuggingFace

        It’s China Syndrome but instead of nuclear reactors it’s AI.

        what are we a bunch of ASIANS?!?!???

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          0·
          6 days ago

          It’s China Syndrome but instead of nuclear reactors it’s AI.

          what are we a bunch of ASIANS?!?!???

          Not sure if you’re kidding or just ignorant of what that reference is, but it has nothing to do with China.

          • ebu@awful.systemsEnglish
            0·
            6 days ago

            if you put this paragraph

            Corporations institute barebones [crappy product] that [works terribly] because they can’t be bothered to pay the [production workers] to actually [produce quality products] but when shit goes south they turn around and blame the [workers] for a bad product instead of admitting they cut corners.

            and follow it up with “It’s China Syndrome”… then it’s pretty astonishingly clear it is meant in reference to the perceived dominant production ideology of specifically China and has nothing to do with nuclear reactors