If, using deep learning and without any medical expertise, computers can spot cancers more accurately than humans, why bother getting expertise in a field ? (since you know the machine will be better than you at it)


To respond to the comment :

It was discovered very recently that a computer built entirely by deep learning, meaning using no medical expertise whatsoever, is able to identify carcinogenic cells under a microscope more accurately than human pathologists. Thus, it seems that having a background in the field of medicine is not required anymore to “act like a doctor”. Therefore, why should individuals bother getting expertise in a field ? Why trained 10 years to be a doctor ?

(cf. the TED video : https://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_howard_the_wonderful_and_terrifying_implications_of_computers_that_can_learn )

(and also cf. the article about how open data is enabling every citizen to become experts in all kinds of fields : “When data is made readily available in machine readable formats, more eyes can look at it. This means that someone on the ground, in the community (like, say, Toronto) who knows the sector, is more likely to spot something a public servant in another city might not see because they don’t have the right context or bandwidth.”)

(random citizens => know better than trained public servants ?)


Hello P., could you provide the link for your video ? could you also dig up a bit further or gather more numbers here, with your sources. Hint/Example: medical expert system and their success-rate are impressive for a decade already.

Basically, you need a short question, some context, and the their references (sources).

Add a Comment