Speaking as one who was raised by a physician, I cower in horror at the thought of having a treatment plan designed and implemented by a neural network without human intervention.
We've seen that for a number of difficult problems, deep neural networks, given sufficient data and expert trainers, do a good job most of the time and occasionally come to mortifyingly wrong conclusions.
Run a 'sed s/mortifying/mortal/' on that previous sentence and think about it for a minute.
Humans also make mistakes that are fatal for others, and we have been thinking about that for millennia.
Humans also subvert things in order to make more money.
Maybe not complete replacement, but where AI does most of the thinking, shows "This is what I found, and this is what I used, to decide this." and humans have the final approval on whether to go ahead with whatever it decided.
If someone has a disagreement, it would be submitted to the AI and make it re-evaluate everything while weighing it against the disagreement.
As an assistant to a heavily-trained, expert human, I do think it would be a helpful aid in catching human error.
I would make my tiebreaker another human, though.
If the AI system showed the reasoning behind its choice, that would help a lot with assuaging my fears. I was thinking of the current state of neural networks, where there's no way to see how it drew its conclusions.
We've seen that for a number of difficult problems, deep neural networks, given sufficient data and expert trainers, do a good job most of the time and occasionally come to mortifyingly wrong conclusions.
Run a 'sed s/mortifying/mortal/' on that previous sentence and think about it for a minute.