Charlotte Blease

And it's the psychology of the AI and the doctor.

So Kasparov's law is interesting because it was suggested when he lost to Deep Blue, the thought was, and then you had this era of the centaur tours in chess matches where you had weaker humans playing

paired with a strong computer and a strong process.

And they were able to beat, at the time, AI computers.

But the lesson for medicine there is it's a weaker human.

What's interesting is potentially how then do we train doctors?

Because if you have, and again, there's a lot of research that domain experts tend to hold their noses more to algorithmic output.

So there's a need here to look at that sort of siloed research on how do humans respond to algorithms?

Lay people tend to defer more.

Experts tend to, it's called algorithmic appreciation, but experts tend to show more algorithmic aversion.

But then what you're saying as well, perhaps we are also now, because certainly in the chess world, if you follow the analogy or the comparison, the era of centaurs is now over.

There's no partnership that beats AI.

So again, what you see from those studies is,

the doctor and the AI together.

The doctor tends to hurt the accuracy of the AI, whereas if you leave the AI alone, it's better.

And then this invites very, I mean, they're taboo questions, but I mean, why are we keeping the... But I think we need many more of those studies.

It invites questions about what the right partnership is and something that you've been writing about and thinking about for many years, certainly in relation to the NHS and education,

What training do we actually need?

What's the right training in order to work alongside?

Because that's probably what's going to happen, at least in the medium term.