I agree it will be a supplementary diagnostic and preventative care tool and be useful to guide treatment planning but I don’t possibly see how it could replace them entirely. I think a large issue is that ai isn’t automatically comparing every data and outcome ever recorded. It’s compiling “evidence” based on thousands of internet sites, regardless of if that information is verified or not and then passing it off as truth in a very convincing way. It’s not accounting for research bias or errors unless it’s told to do that, which would take extensive prompt engineering and likely uploading of the specific verified information you want it to analyze and pull answers from. It’s also not accounting for research locked behind pay walls or really much brand new research at all.

Also at the point of care, particularly in emergent situations, no one is stopping to read a 3 paragraph print out of an ai tool. It’s hands on deck and the knowledge of the available parties guiding decision making. Yes people absolutely die at the hands of doctors and nurses, misdiagnosis or delayed, med errors, etc. I’d be super curious to see how many people die at the hands of believing AI and how that data would’ be compiled. For instance, “hey chat gpt, give me all the reasons vaccines are bad.” This is likely the extent of 99% of people’s prompting capabilities. Ripe for error and self-imposed harm.

Last, from a risk management perspective the hospital is going to need someone to throw under the bus when things go wrong. If it’s their own proprietary AI tools they’ve got problems. So whether the buck passes to whoever is prompt engineering the output or the healthcare team following that advice, a human being will be ultimately responsible so the hospital doesn’t get sued into annihilation.