Америкийн Анагаах Ухааны Нийгэмлэгийн сэтгүүлд нийтлэгдсэн судалгаагаар хиймэл оюун ухаан нь удахгүй оношилгоо, эмчилгээний үндсэн таван чиглэлээр хүний оролцоогүйгээр илүү үр дүнтэй ажиллах боломжтойг онцоллоо.
Эзекиэл Эмануэл, Винод Хосла нарын тэргүүтэй судлаачдын үзэж буйгаар, 2024 оны нэгдүгээр сараас хойш хийгдсэн судалгаанууд нь хиймэл оюун ухаан нь эмч нартай хамтран ажиллахаас илүүтэйгээр бие даан ажиллахдаа илүү өндөр үр дүн үзүүлж байгааг харуулж байна. Энэхүү технологи нь өвчний түүх хөтлөх, онош тавих, шинжилгээний төрлийг тодорхойлох, эмчилгээний жор бичих болон архаг өвчнийг удирдах зэрэг эмчийн үндсэн үүргийг бүрэн гүйцэтгэх чадамжтай болж байна. Судлаачид эмнэлзүйн үйл явцад хүн оролцох нь хиймэл оюун ухааны гүйцэтгэлийг бууруулж болзошгүй тул технологийн бие даасан байдлыг хангах нь чухал гэж дүгнэжээ.
Эзекиэл Эмануэл өмнө нь хиймэл оюун ухаан анагаах ухааны нарийн төвөгтэй үйлдлүүдийг орлох боломжгүй гэж үздэг байсан ч сүүлийн үеийн технологийн дэвшлийг харгалзан үзэхэд 2030 он гэхэд хиймэл оюун ухаан эмч нарыг бүрэн орлох магадлалтай гэж үзэх болсон байна. Энэхүү дүгнэлт нь Curai Health зэрэг онлайн эрүүл мэндийн байгууллагуудын туршлагад тулгуурласан бөгөөд тус салбарт ажиллаж буй мэргэжилтнүүдийн дунд маргаан дагуулаад байна.
Америкийн Анагаах Ухааны Нийгэмлэгийн гүйцэтгэх захирал Жон Уайт уг дүгнэлтийг эсэргүүцэж, хиймэл оюун ухааныг эмчийн хяналт дор ашиглах нь зүйтэй гэсэн байр суурийг илэрхийлжээ. Тэрээр 2026 оны хоёрдугаар сард Nature сэтгүүлд нийтлэгдсэн судалгааг дурдаад, бодит нөхцөлд өвчтөнүүд их хэмжээний хэлний загваруудтай (LLM) үр дүнтэй харилцаж, мэдээлэл авахад бэрхшээлтэй байдгийг онцолсон байна. Түүний үзэж буйгаар хиймэл оюун ухаан нь зөвхөн эмчийн удирдлага дор явагдах эмчилгээний төлөвлөгөөний хүрээнд л дэмжлэг үзүүлэх хэрэгсэл байх ёстой.
Дэлгэрэнгүйг эх сурвалжаас харах
↓Эх сурвалжийг нээх ↓
Don’t be fooled by the question mark in the title of an article published this month in the Journal of the American Medical Association. When the authors, including medical superstar Ezekiel Emanuel and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, asked, “Will Autonomous AI Exceed AI-Physicians as the Best Medical Care?” they were being rhetorical. Their answer is an emphatic YES. Many in the medical world are begrudgingly coming to terms with the premise that patients can get the best treatment by a hybrid approach where doctors work in consultation with well-trained bots. But this article’s thesis is that AI alone can deliver the best outcomes.
“Review of all published articles on AI in medicine since January 1, 2024, shows that medicine is rapidly approaching the transition point at which AI alone will exceed physicians and physician AI-hybrids in providing the best care at five fundamental medical tasks,” they write. Those tasks include taking medical histories, establishing a diagnosis, identifying what tests are needed, prescribing treatment, and managing chronic diseases. You know, doctoring. AI is now so good, they argue, that clinicians should refrain from meddling, because “humans in the loop degrade AI performance.” Stand back, doc, and let AI do its thing. Which used to be your thing.
Lead author Emanuel—brother of Ari and Rahm, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Penn and a renowned oncologist—told me that for many years, he’d dismissed the idea that AI could perform core medical functions. He would run into Khosla at conferences in the 2010s, and the VC would bend his ear about how AI would be doing 85 percent of what doctors did by 2035. It was a hobbyhorse Khosla had been riding for years, writing a 2012 piece in TechCrunch asking, “Do We Need Doctors or Algorithms?”(again, rhetorical) and penning a 101-page treatise in 2016 to that effect. “I said bullshit, there’s no way,” says Emanuel. “What doctors do is too complicated.”
But about a year ago, Emanuel’s friend Robert Wachter sent him galleys of his book A Giant Leap, where Wachter, who is head of medicine at UCSF, outlined a world where first-class medicine would be a collaborative process between AI and doctors, but the masses in “economy class” would mostly make do with AI alone. Emanuel began to think that Khosla might be right. He suddenly flashed on a frightening question: “If AI takes over, what’s left for doctors to do?”
First he needed to validate the premise. He asked Khosla to collaborate, and the VC suggested that his son Neal Khosla join the effort, along with Emanuel’s researcher. Neal runs Curai Health, an online company that uses AI to treat patients, with a staff of doctors to prescribe medicine and handle more complicated issues. (This conflict of interest is disclosed in the paper, along with Vinod Khosla’s relevant investments and Emanuel’s various grants and consultancies.) The coauthors set out to look at all the studies on AI medicine that they could find from January 2024 to the present and concluded that, in many cases, a “superior autonomous AI” will likely surpass humans using AI by 2030. That prediction, they admit, is “unsettling but seems probable.”
Unsettling is an understatement. One of the loudest dissenting voices is John Whyte, CEO of the American Medical Association, which represents all those doctors who will be worrying about what’s left. When I talked to him, Whyte began by noting what he saw as the paper’s shortcomings, including that some of the studies it surveyed are simulations, not blind experiments, and they don’t all support the article’s conclusion. Notably, a February 2026 Nature article found that in real-life cases, most patients were unable to effectively converse with large language models to access their expertise. Whyte unsurprisingly bristled at the idea of removing humans from the clinical loop. “The AMA does see the potential in these tools, but they have to be utilized in the context of a care plan that’s governed by a physician,” he says.
