Jae is awesome, but picked a particularly difficult case.
There are certain kinds of diagnosis which are hard for humans and easy for computers, relatively, and some which are hard for computers and easy for people. (well, more likely hard for one and impossible for the other).
Truly novel things, where you aggregate data across multiple sites, are IMO the most amazing. Or, really rare but well defined conditions; doctors, especially busy ones, have a much smaller in-memory working set than computers.
I am very excited by machine diagnosis to augment humans. I don't think it will replace humans for a long time, but making humans even 1% better saves many lives and improves quality of life (and saves money).
It took 3 days of work-up and 4 teams' brains to make the final diagnosis of early Crohn's disease.
3 days and 4 teams working on one guy's stomach ache? Was this guy a Saudi prince? Seriously, I think we've already established that the richest of the rich will always be able to get great health care; for myself, I just don't want to have to convince a doctor that a 103 degree fever and occlusion on a chest x-ray aren't caused by my asthma acting up. I don't want to go into the doctor after vomiting constantly for three days, just to be told "that happens". Personal care from a team (or a few teams) of doctors probably can't be beat, but machine diagnosis can probably beat any health care I've ever received.
