Google is suggesting this should be used in poor countries without enough doctors because they know it is (or essentially will be, after the tidal wave of malpractice suits happens) illegal in the US.
Furthermore, what are the odds that an ensemble of 100 models whose output is ranked / voted / etc will be wrong?
What if we used LLMs to guide the search and ask questions / order and rank exams and analyses?
This brings us to the bitter lesson, we can scale LLMs and compute far far far better than we can scale humans.
As long as we can use compute to scale search and learning from data, we will keep making progress.
Chess was unsolvable, Go was unsolvable, Starcraft was unsolvable. We will get there.
Does the chatbot misdiagnose less than a doctor? When the chatbot does misdiagnose, is it in manner similar to a doctor? In the same way that AI generated images always had weird and creepy fingers, does this chatbot consistently misdiagnose the common cold as brain cancer?
IMHO, without some real data, we're simply experimenting on people. That is wholly immoral.
After some contradictory information on error rates and failure modes, a Google employee is quoted in the article:
'Corrado said that while he wouldn’t want it to be a part of his own family’s “healthcare journey,” he believes Med-PaLM 2 “takes the places in healthcare where AI can be beneficial and expands them by 10-fold.”'
Yikes! 10-fold expansion, excluding any interaction with people this person really cares about. Let us remember that this is a 10x times increase over the current "places where chatbot are beneficial in healthcare", that is to say zero.
MedPalm seems to be accessible only to healthcare facilities. If the chatbot hallucinated the wrong diagnosis or treatment, the doctor will still be liable.