&quot;Enlitic has tested its software against a database of 6,000 lung cancer diagnoses, both positive and negative, made by professional radiologists. In research soon to be published, its algorithm was 50 percent more accurate than human radiologists, Enlitic said.&quot;<p>If I&#x27;m the patient, I want the AI to make the initial diagnosis, then highlight parts of the image most relevant to the diagnosis, and present links to guidelines or research articles backing up the conclusion (or whatever kinds of citations are most relevant to a radiologist).  Then the radiologist either confirms (which will be the majority case, if the A.I. is as good as advertised), or disagrees and replaces with his or her own diagnosis.  Note this requires a more sophisticated design and interface than a simple &quot;cancer&#x2F;not-cancer&quot; output.<p>I want a human in the loop.  Sometimes A.I. systems can outperform humans over all, but when it makes mistakes, the mistakes are things human &quot;common sense&quot; would have quickly ruled out.  When it comes to my health or other topics I consider important, I want both the strength of an automated system and the intuition of an expert, applied in a cost effective and efficient manner.<p>A.I. should be a productivity enhancement tool for my doctor, but I&#x27;m definitely not ready for an A.I. to be my doctor.