How doctors and bots can (and should) work together
The fear that machines will replace humans in the workplace is not a new one. In 1930, economist John Maynard Keynes conjectured that in the years to come, modern economies would face a new kind of affliction: what Keynes called “technological unemployment.” During the Industrial Revolution — one of the more notable examples of a radical paradigm shift in the labor market due to automation — textile laborers were supplanted by steam-powered machinery. Today, we no longer manually assemble cars in factories. The days of human telephone switchboard operators are long gone. And by some counts, roughly half of all low-skilled positions are expected to be replaced by artificial intelligence and automation.
It’s difficult to accurately gauge the threat of automation and AI to the human workforce. Some argue automation alone could spell the end for many service workers, such as cashiers, truck drivers, and retail salespeople. A recent study from the National Bureau of Economic Research — based on U.S. labor market statistics from 1990 to 2007 — revealed that for every robot introduced into the workplace, between 3 and 5.6 human workers lost their jobs, and the study predicted a deep decline in the employment-to-population ratio. With the added consideration of quickly growing artificial intelligence used to augment the machinery, it’s no wonder experts and laypeople alike fear for mankind’s ability to make a living in the future.
Yet there are equally many who contest this dire forecast. Some claim the statistics paint an inaccurate picture, adding that perhaps only 10 percent of jobs are at risk of automation and that, even then, technology also tends to create jobs, too. One contributor to MIT Technology Review argues this fear is merely hysteria generated by a variety of misconceptions, largely based on an overestimation of AI’s uses and abilities and on Hollywood notions of science fiction scenarios.
Still, the trepidation persists, and it’s not just limited to manual laborers and service workers. Many in the medical field fear that they may be under threat of losing their jobs to AI — and these concerns aren’t entirely unfounded. Personal health care robots, which could assist in managing personal medication schedules and tracking health progress, are predicted by some to replace domestic nurses. In addition, anesthesiologists may face upheaval, since Johnson & Johnson already has an FDA-approved device that automates the delivery of low levels of anesthesia.
On the whole, however, it’s not a matter of AI versus physicians, but one of AI plus physicians. Perhaps the first step towards realizing AI stands to do more good than harm in the health technology sector is deepening one’s understanding of what AI means pragmatically. A far cry from the hyper-intelligent entity often portrayed in science fiction, AI is in actuality only a tool used to assist and enhance physicians’ practices. Because of this, IBM suggests referring to it not as artificial intelligence, but as augmented intelligence, compounding the notion that AI is merely intended to enhance products and services, rather than replace the humans that offer them.
One major issue facing physicians is how to use the enormous amounts of data to effectively treat patients. Electronic medical records (EMRs), sensors, and wearables collect huge amounts of information, allowing for both clinic- and home-based medical data gathering through continuous monitoring. AI can enhance doctors’ critical decisions by unlocking patterns from all of that new data. IBM Watson for Oncology synthesizes data from “over 290 medical journals, over 200 textbooks, and 12 million pages of text” to uncover methods of treatment that no single human could find on their own.
