Challenge: In the article, "One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence", the
topic of artificial intelligence integration with healthcare is expanded
upon in a manner that downplays the current quality of the healthcare sector, 
and does not focus on the practical needs and issues of medical professionals.
  
  The article asserts that regulation and "structural barriers" in healthcare
are the factors preventing artificial intelligence technology from making an
impact, and that this impact is "largely unrealized" (26). While there might
not be an issue with the logical benefits of the innovative technology, the
article seems to be implying that the healthcare sector is itself dated and
archaic in its practices, and must make use of the incoming artificial
intelligence technology to progress. It is here that the article also undermines
the already demanding and stressful duties placed on healthcare professionals.

  Although the article continuously implies that it is reasonable for the
healthcare sector to be wary of new changes due to the highly volitile
environment that exists, there does not seem to be an understanding for the
need to be dynamic and flexible with regards to providing medical care.
When discussing robotics, there is mention of how any robots placed will not
be fully automated in hopes of aleviating any stress over troubleshooting or
control issues. However, the article then states that it is trivial to have
robotics assist with patient travel, but only if the patient can stand in a
walker; any of those who are recovering from surgery or are of an old age will
have a more difficult scenario (28-9). This example presents a case of limited
functionality, where in which it might not be necessary to have robotics
dedicated to such intimate actions with patients.

  In the clinial environment, it can be seen that a primary care
physician diagnosis of a patient's condition is in competition with software
that can perform a similar task. What the article is asserting is that there
should be no question of the physician's skill; the software is merely a
suppliment to the physician and patient, and should be used in conjunction
with the physician's own expertise. What could arise, however, is a
disgreement between the patient and the physician. The patient, who might not
be as educated with respect to artificial intelligence and medicine, might
very well trust the software's result over the physician's, and attempt to
verify the software's decision by exaggerating certain symptoms and
circumstances. This would result in more effort on the physician's part to
provide evidence and details, which may or may not result in success.

  In general, any existing technology being integrated with healthcare
systems will already pose a higher learning curve for medical professionals,
whose focus is stricly medical related. Additionaly, technology advancements
could potentially inhibit the professional from maximizing efficiency in the
workplace; this was exemplified in the case of the physician's status versus
the software's status in the eyes of the patient. At the same time, if the 
technology being introduced is highly specialized, then there is the question 
of the effectiveness of exisitng medical practices versus the practicality of
the new technology.
