…I am not arguing that we shouldn't aspire to perfection, nor that A.I. in health care should receive a free pass from regulators. A.I. designed to act autonomously, without clinician supervision, should be closely vetted for accuracy. The same goes for A.I. that may be integrated into machines like CT scanners, insulin pumps and surgical robots — areas in which a mistake can be catastrophic and a physician's ability to validate the results is limited. We need to ensure patients are fully informed and can consent to A.I. developers' intended use of their personal information. For patient-facing A.I. tools in high-stakes settings such as diagnosis and psychotherapy, we also need sensible regulations to ensure accuracy and effectiveness.
But as the saying goes, "Don't compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative." In health care, the alternative is a system that fails too many patients, costs too much and frustrates everyone it touches. A.I. won't fix all of that, but it's already fixing some of it — and that's worth celebrating.
