view the rest of the comments
Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
Maybe it's just pessimistic of me but I could also see this being used to make it harder to actually get the definitive test if the AI doesn't notice your heart problems on the first pass, like the insurance won't approve it or something like that
That's the part that's broken, not the concerns that you might get false negatives.
In any case, I would hope that the system would return "results inconclusive" rather than a hard no, prompting you to be put in the queue for normal diagnostics.
Ai tool isn't a proof, so this cannot be used in definitive tests. The absence of something is not proof it isn't there, you just didn't found it. On the other side, it cannot proof you have an issue, it can just find signs of, so a real doctor have to look into it for proof. I do not think this can be used for insurance, even if the tool was quiet accurate in finding signs.
Yeah, like insurance companies give a shit. They will deny millions of people access with this result. They will use the savings to then pay lawyers to smother anyone who tries to fight it.
I don't think this is legal to do so, at least here in Europe/Germany.
They already do that, though.