Paper Status Tracking
Contact us
[email protected]
Click here to send a message to me 3275638434
Paper Publishing WeChat

Article
Affiliation(s)

Independent Scholar, Isle of Wight, UK

ABSTRACT

Electronic machines in the guise of digital computers have transformed our world―social, family, commerce, and politics―although not yet health. Each iteration spawns expectations of yet more astonishing wonders. We wait for the next unbelievable invention to fall into our lap, possibly without limit. How realistic is this? What are the limits, and have we now reached them? A recent survey in The Economist suggests that we have. It describes cycles of misery, where inflated expectations are inevitably followed, a few years later, by disillusion. Yet another Artificial Intelligence (AI) winter is coming―“After years of hype, many people feel AI has failed to deliver”. The current paper not only explains why this was bound to happen, but offers a clear and simple pathway as to how to avoid it happening again. Costly investments in time and effort can only show solid, reliable benefits when full weight is given to the fundamental binary nature of the digital machine, and to the equally unique human faculty of ‘intent’. ‘Intent’ is not easy to define; it suffers acutely from verbal fuzziness―a point made extensively in two earlier papers: “The scientific evidence that ‘intent’ is vital for healthcare” and “Why Quakerism is more scientific than Einstein”. This paper argues that by putting ‘intent’ centre stage, first healthcare, and then democracy can be rescued. Suppose every medical consultation were supported by realistic data usage? What if, using only your existing smartphone, your entire medical history were scanned, and instantly compared, within microseconds,  with up-to-the-minute information on contraindications and efficacy, from around the globe, for the actual drug  you were about to receive, before you actually received it? This is real-time retrieval of clinical data―it increases the security of both doctor and patient, in a way that is otherwise unachievable. My 1980 Ph.D. thesis extolled the merits of digitising the medical record―and, just as digitisation has changed our use of audio and video beyond recognition, so a data-rich medical consultation is unprecedented―prepare to be surprised. This paper has four sections: (1) where binaries help; (2) where binaries ensure extinction; (3) computers in healthcare and  civilisation; and (4) data-rich doctoring. Health is vital for economic success, as the current pandemic demonstrates, inescapably. Politics, too, is routinely corrupted―unless we rectify both, failures in AI will be the least of our troubles.

KEYWORDS

Artificial Intelligence (AI), ‘intent’, digitising the medical record, data-rich healthcare, real-time retrieval of clinical data

Cite this paper

Sociology Study, Mar.-Apr. 2020, Vol. 10, No. 2, 92-102

References

Cross, T. (2020). An understanding of AI’s limitations is starting to sink in. The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2020/06/11/an-understanding-of-ais-limitations-is-starting-to-sink-in

Johnson, R. A. (Bob). (1972). Computer analysis of the complete medical record, including symptoms and treatment. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 22(123), 655-660. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2156940/

Johnson, R. A. (Bob). (1974). A method of evaluating treatment in general practice. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 24(149), 832-836. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4461818

Johnson, R. A. (Bob). (1980). Real time retrieval of clinical data (Ph.D. thesis, UMIST, UK). Retrieved from https://www.librarysearch.manchester.ac.uk/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma992978086165801631&context=L&vid=44MAN_INST:MU_NUI&lang=en&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&isFrbr=true&tab=Everything&query=any,contains,Real%20time%20retrieval%20of%20clinical%20data&sortby=date_d&facet=frbrgroupid,include,48412289304630989&offset=0&pcAvailability=false

Johnson, R. A. (Bob). (1986). Adverse reactions in ten years’ general practice, computer analysed. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 79(3), 145-148. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1290232/

Johnson, B. (2017). The scientific evidence that “intent” is vital for healthcare. Open Journal of Philosophy, 7, 422-434. doi:10.4236/ojpp.2017.74022. Retrieved from https://file.scirp.org/Html/2-1650815_79128.htm

Johnson, B. (2018). How verbal physiotherapy works, using social delight to defeat social harm, for all. Retrieved from https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/892956

Johnson, B. (2019). Our Midas disease—Curing our money addiction (Unpublished).

Johnson, B. (2020a). Why Quakerism is more scientific than Einstein. Philosophy Study, 10(4), 233-251. doi:10.17265/2159-5313/2020.04.002. Retrieved from http://www.davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/5e9ecb0b2 31e3.pdf

Johnson, B. (2020b). The scientific evidence that today’s psychiatry cripples itself―By excluding intent. Philosophy Study, 10(6), 347-359. Retrieved from http://www.davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/5eec5e333dc4f.pdf

About | Terms & Conditions | Issue | Privacy | Contact us
Copyright © 2001 - David Publishing Company All rights reserved, www.davidpublisher.com
3 Germay Dr., Unit 4 #4651, Wilmington DE 19804; Tel: 1-323-984-7526; Email: [email protected]