The relatability of OP’s shared experience has us wanting to replace most medical professionals with genAI language models as soon as the regulations allow
Understandable, I guess. But not feasible now, nor in the foreseeable future. The problem is not even "AI" performance. The real problem is that the useful data isn't available to machines, because it's mostly acquired through meeting patients in person. It's gonna take lots of money to make machines that can compensate for that.
I don't see how a meeting patient in person requirement is an issue. They can listen to the patient, have a context window large enough to analyze their medical history and environmental factors, look at charts, and diagnostics of tissues
and still have a much greater EQ, ability to affirm, and have empathy more than the dismissive high IQ doctor ever will
humans are going to chose that because smart humans don't have those attributes
Rebutting hypobolic extrapolations from literally one datum is still not something that the entire medical industry - or just my PCP and cardiologist, for that matter - should be prioritizing (unless they have a patient doing just that), even if the prevalence of such claims has increased over the last decade or so.
The afforementioned professionals had no reticence in taking my pre-40 symptoms of heart disease seriously, even though I did not present any of the correlates frequently associated with it.
It’s not hyperbolic, it’s a relatable shared experience, which are the words I used for a reason. as its not a single datum, while also avoids any attempt to quantify it at all
>The main calculator used in the US to calculate 10-year risk of cardiovascular incident literally cannot compute scores for people under 40. There are two consequences to this....
And the first claim:
> If you are under 40 you will never encounter a physician who believes you are at risk of heart attack or stroke.
If that's not hyperbolic, where's your evidence that it even just close to being the case?
