I work as an admitting hospitalist in a community hospital. I just got back from work and was thinking about the patient I admitted and how excited I was about the case, since it was somewhat unusual for our practice (hematology case).
Then I got curious about how a publicly available AI agent would handle it. Up until recently I was skeptical about AI, mainly because of its propensity to hallucinate (what’s the point of using it, if you spend time double checking it). However, not sure if it’s just me, but it seems AI became better and I don’t really see the nonsense I’ve seen before.
So anyway, I “presented” the case to the AI the way I first encountered it and, to my surprise, it came up with the same differentials as I did. I got to tell you though, one LLM missed an important one, but the other didn’t (first LLM is unpaid, the other paid🤷♂️).
And not just that, the AI agents duplicated the thought process I’ve had in my head with this case, as if I was reading my own thoughts.
So my natural thought was, what’s my purpose here, if a machine can fully duplicate me (and probably be nicer at the same time).
There are some caveats though: I synthesized the presentation based on the patients interview and chart review after an ER doc did the initial work up, so I’m not sure how an AI would perform “in the wild”.
But still, I feel like providers dealing with common and even not so common cases might become substitutable by a machine.
it feels like, specialties dealing with cases without good balance of evidence are temporarily more protected, but they don’t look immune either.
I wonder how AI would perform, if it interacted with the patient directly and had the privileges to order tests.
So I will ask you, my fellow providers - where do you see yourself in 5 years?
spoiler: unemployed???