A tale of two deficits : causality and care in medical AI
In this paper, two central questions will be addressed: ought we to implement medical AI technology in the medical domain? If yes, how ought we to implement this technology? I will critically engage with three options that exist with respect to these central questions: the Neo-Luddite option, the...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/143941 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Nanyang Technological University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | In this paper, two central questions will be addressed: ought we to implement medical
AI technology in the medical domain? If yes, how ought we to implement this
technology? I will critically engage with three options that exist with respect to these
central questions: the Neo-Luddite option, the Assistive option, and the Substitutive
option. I will first address key objections on behalf of the Neo-Luddite option: the
Objection from Bias, the Objection from Artificial Autonomy, the Objection from
Status Quo, and the Objection from Inscrutability. I will thereafter present the Demographic
Trends Argument and the Human Enhancement Argument in support of
alternatives to the Neo-Luddite option. In the second half of the paper, I will argue
against the Substitutive option and in favour of the Assistive option, given the existence
of two chief formal deficits in medical AI technology: the causality deficit and the care
deficit. |
|---|