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 ?)
I think this question is to be linked and put in perspective with maybe more practical domains, as it is an illustration of the big theme of the replacement of human work by the machine.
For example : legaltechs. At SciencesPo, most people do law. Many do internships in law firms, where they try to search which law apply, and which caselaw apply. This is already done by legaltechs, powered by AI.
It is clear that the machine will replace the mission of the interns.
Your approach would be to say : why study law then ?
Another, maybe more relevant approach is to ask :
Will law firms stop hire interns (interns would be replaced by machines) or will interns in lawfirms be given better, more interesting missions, closer to the lawyers’s missions, like writing conclusions for instance ?
It’s a radical question. Can we really argue that the computer has no medical expertise if it can be programmed to detect illness and diagnose it correctly?
Computers can be helpful in detecting illnesses but I think that there is still a need for a human to look twice at a an image, perhaps the computer can help in the recommendation of treatment but the follow up and complications probably needs humans. There is currently a problem with over diagnostisation of breast cancer with the use of mammography scans, leading to unnecessary treatments (https://www.bcaction.org/2016/10/17/how-routine-mammography-screening-fails-women/).
The future of medical education will probably include machine operation and working together with machines – it seems unlikely that the scenario would be so radical as machines vs. human doctors, as they’re probably gonna have to work together which could be a great way to make the health sector more efficient.