Let's assume the last person that entered their radiologist training started then and the training lasts 5 years. At the end of their training the year is 2021 and they are around 31. So that means they will practice medicine for cca 30 years which would put the calendar at around 2051. I'd wager in 25 years we'd get there so I think his opinion still has a large percentage of being correct.
And if it doesn't work out ?
People can't tell what they'll eat next sunday but they'll predict AGI and singualrity in 25 years. It's comfy because 25 years seems like a lot of time, it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...
> I'd wager in 25 years we'd get there so I think his opinion still has a large percentage of being correct.
What percent, and which maths and facts let you calculate it ? The only percent you can be sure about is that it's 100% wishful thinking
I mean it's an opinion (mine) so maybe feel free to disagree with me without going overboard.
> It's comfy because 25 years seems like a lot of time, it isn't.
I don't know how old you are but life 25 years ago from a tech perspective was *very* different.
Different, but nobody could predict what would happen next. We know now how different it was, but we didn’t know back then how it would be different now. There were people/companies who were right, and more people who weren’t. I had good predictions, and bad predictions. I didn’t understand why people didn’t use their phone already like how they use smartphones now. You could do everything what you can do now (except things which were discovered since then, mainly ML stuffs). Browse the internet (it was always interesting how people didn’t know what was WAP), listen to music, read books, play games, run random apps (there was waaaay more freedom regarding this back then by default, people just didn’t know how). But still, we needed smartphones. That was the thing which crossed the line for normies, and for most of them only more than 5 years after iPhone was released. My prediction of convergence would have failed without the modern smartphone, which I couldn’t foresee. It was pure luck. We needed a breakthrough.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t predict anything with high certainty. You just don’t know whether the status quo will be disturbed. And when you need a status quo disturbance for your prediction, you’re in pure luck category. When your prediction requires lack of status quo changes, then your prediction is safer. And of course sorter the term the better. When ChatGPT came out, Cursor and Claude Code could be predicted, I predicted them. Because no changes in status quo was required and it was a short term prediction. But if there would have been a new breakthrough, then those wouldn’t have been created. When they predicted fully self driving cars, or less people checking X-rays, you needed a status quo change: legal first, but in case of general, fully self driving cars, even technical breakthroughs. Good luck with that.
Let’s say we do manage to develop a model that can replace radiologists in 20 years. But we stop training them today. What happens 15 years from now when we don’t have nearly enough radiologists.
I'm not saying it's a good idea to think like that, I'm just saying I'd wager he's right on thinking that AI will be in a good position in 20+ years.
Radiologists can retrain to do something else adjacent surely? Not like they'll suddenly be like an 18 year old with no degree trying to find a job.
Why do we assume that radiologists would have literally 0% involvement in the radiology workflow?
I could see the assumption that one radiologist supervises a group of automated radiology machines (like a worker in an automated factory). Maybe assume that they'd be delegated to an auditing role. But that they'd go completely extinct? There's no evidence of, even historically, a service being consumed that has zero human intervention.
Alarm clocks. Elevators. ATMs. Laundry. Chess opponent. Watching a movie. …
> I'd wager
Maybe don't?
So all the current radiologists are going to live until 2051?
Even Marie Curie would have.
Why you write 2021? It clearly says 2016.
I mean if you change the data to fit your argument you will always make it look correct.
Lets assume we stop in 2016 like he said, where do we get the 1000 radiologist the US needs a year?
> the training lasts 5 years. At the end of their training the year is 2021
The training lasts 5 years, 2021 - 5 = 2016 If they stopped accepting people into the radiologist program but let people already in to finish, then you would stop having new radiologist in 2021.
Training is a lot longer than that in Québec, radiology is a specialty, so they must first do their 5 years in medicine, followed by a 5 year diagnostic radiology residency program. And it's frequently followed by a 2 years fellowship.
So 5 + 5 + [0,2] is [10,12] years of training.
Residents are working doctors, so we’d start losing useful work the year we stop taking new residents.
'people should stop training radiologists now'
That sentence and what you wrote are not 100% the same.