HW1

In the article “Artificial Intelligence and Life in 2030” (Stone et al., 2016), authors argue that when it comes to the applications of artificial intelligence in healthcare, the development of the field is impeded by ‘outdated regulations and policies’ (p.25). It is further suggested in the article that the removal of these regulations are essential for artificial intelligence to step into health care and save millions of lives (pp.25-26).
However, I do not agree with the argument that regulations and policies are the major factors stopping artificial intelligence from saving people’s lives. Instead, appropriate regulations and policies are a good way, if not the only way, of keeping the technology in check and making sure it does no harm to human beings, especially in the field of healthcare.
One common problem people have with artificial intelligence in healthcare system is the attribution of responsibility for wrongdoing. Compared to many other fields, wrongdoings have especially serious consequences when it comes to medicare. While the authors suggested that artificial intelligence will likely serve an assisting role for medicine practitioners (p.27), how much should a wrong suggestion given by artificial intelligence be hold accountable when the final decision made by the medical practitioner goes wrong? In other words, if we recognize the weakness of artificial intelligence as stated in the article and therefore require an additional professional to do the final judgement as well as to take up the responsibility, the technology itself is not so appealing anymore.
The fact that artificial intelligence could never be hold accountable for ethical responsibilities as a human being does essentially inhibits fully automated diagnosis from becoming applicable in the real world settings. Therefore, when artificial intelligence applications finally become mature enough in healthcare setting, a great deal of clinical trials, professional evaluations, and even legislation will be required for finding and settling an appropriate role for these technologies. However, before that day comes, strict regulations are not only essential from an emotional point of view based on public’s fear of unknown technology, but also crucial from the legal and professional perspectives before the technology is well-developed and thoroughly tested.

Moreover, the article is also self-conflicting regarding the argument I pointed out. While it acknowledges the limits artificial intelligence have in current time and the near future (p.27), it also claims that strict government regulations are slowing down the development of the technology (p.25). 
In my opinion, applications of artificial intelligence in real-world settings, especially in healthcare related field, should only be implemented if they are guaranteed to benefit the life of human beings, instead of as toy models of some research groups or ‘cool product’ of new start-ups. Restrictions are made to protect the well-being of human race and should not be considered as ‘obstacles’ when developing the technology that is aiming to complete the same goal.
Overall, while the article provides a good insight into possibilities of artificial intelligence’s future, it is somewhat lacking the sense that human being are the subject whose well-being we are aiming to maximize, instead of focusing on advancing the technology itself, which could possibly do more harm than help if not regulated properly.
