Can computers replace 80% of everything doctors do?
In a competitive labor market, firms would substitute labor for capital — thus increasing the productivity of labor. Somehow, I don’t think this will necessarily boost labor productivity of physicians.
1.Medicine needs disruption.
2.Entrepreneurs focused on consumers are most likely to disrupt.
3.Since doctors are part of the system that is the problem, they’re not likely to create the solutions.
4.In the near future, computer algorithms may well replace doctors (80%).
I find Vinod Khosla’s (founder of Sun Microsystems) first three points to be more interesting than his 4th.
If doctors were competing on price (and quality), they would harness the power of computers to improve their efficiency. But, because they are not, they will try to entrench and guard their position.
Can computers replace 80% of everything doctors do?
I’m not sure what to make of this article. In my opinion, most doctors like to stick to their old ways of doing things, they don’t like to try new things if they are not sure whether these “new” advances are fully reliable. I do believe the majority of physicians nowadays have difficulties adjusting to the improvements and innovations in the medical field, and its understandable why. Untill these “advances” are not proven to be 110% efficient and reliable, then no doctor should feel comfortable using them in their practices. However, I.m not sure if this is enough argument to say that the change we need to see will not come from physicians. Perhaps they will not be the primary source of future changes, but they certainly play an important role in it…if they are provided with reliable studies, equipment, and so forth…they will start practicing better medicine, otherwise they won’t. Can you blame them?
You can’t replace 80% of doctors by algorithms. This is just silly. The human body is too complex to replace years of education and experience that doctors get, with a computer. Granted, physicians are often mistaken…but also can algorithms be.
Perhaps they can redefine the role of doctors, but not replace it.
Which are the best hospitals? The ratings don’t agree.
I’ve never been a big fan of online public reviews/rating for anything (goods or services). This is exactly why. What some people may consider a good service, may be an awful service for another person…and confusing enough, both parties probably received the exact same kind of service (quality wise). I feel these rating lists are never reliable because you don’t know what they measure their ratings on. I almost feel like it’s better to ask your neighbor or a family member for a recommendation than to look at these lists.
Great links, escpecially the one about libertarian psychology!
For the article about lossing 22 minutes of your life with t.v., wouldnt you add another hour to that because you wasted an hour watching it.
From that Libertarian article: “Given the philosophy of their heroes, from John Locke and John Stuart Mill to Ayn Rand and Ron Paul..”
Ridley has quite the opinion of Ron Paul, to lump him in with Locke and J.S. Mill.
“and they enjoyed ‘effortful and thoughtful cognitive tasks’ more than others do.”
– What exactly does that mean?
Can computers replace 80% of everything doctors do?
In a competitive labor market, firms would substitute labor for capital — thus increasing the productivity of labor. Somehow, I don’t think this will necessarily boost labor productivity of physicians.
I find Vinod Khosla’s (founder of Sun Microsystems) first three points to be more interesting than his 4th.
If doctors were competing on price (and quality), they would harness the power of computers to improve their efficiency. But, because they are not, they will try to entrench and guard their position.
That libertarian article is worth a repost. Thanks!
Can computers replace 80% of everything doctors do?
I’m not sure what to make of this article. In my opinion, most doctors like to stick to their old ways of doing things, they don’t like to try new things if they are not sure whether these “new” advances are fully reliable. I do believe the majority of physicians nowadays have difficulties adjusting to the improvements and innovations in the medical field, and its understandable why. Untill these “advances” are not proven to be 110% efficient and reliable, then no doctor should feel comfortable using them in their practices. However, I.m not sure if this is enough argument to say that the change we need to see will not come from physicians. Perhaps they will not be the primary source of future changes, but they certainly play an important role in it…if they are provided with reliable studies, equipment, and so forth…they will start practicing better medicine, otherwise they won’t. Can you blame them?
You can’t replace 80% of doctors by algorithms. This is just silly. The human body is too complex to replace years of education and experience that doctors get, with a computer. Granted, physicians are often mistaken…but also can algorithms be.
Perhaps they can redefine the role of doctors, but not replace it.
I’ve never been a big fan of online public reviews/rating for anything (goods or services). This is exactly why. What some people may consider a good service, may be an awful service for another person…and confusing enough, both parties probably received the exact same kind of service (quality wise). I feel these rating lists are never reliable because you don’t know what they measure their ratings on. I almost feel like it’s better to ask your neighbor or a family member for a recommendation than to look at these lists.
Correlation is not causation.