Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I have only recently started following with keen interest the exchanges between Dr Watkins and Babylon Health’s Chatbot. Having trained in the UK before moving to the US, I have some familiarity with cultural and legal differences in how medicine is practiced both sides of the pond and how rapidly the landscape is changing with technology in the US.
A cursory look at the US website’s terms of service compared to the UK is quite illustrative for those inclined; in any case, AI is definitely the future of medicine, here to stay and I applaud Babylon Health for their efforts in filling the void.
I do not feel the concerns about possible missed diagnoses are misplaced, however as their developers generate more data for the algorithms, the issues raised will be ironed out reducing the risks. I am sure many of you recall your House Officer positions back then.
I think there is consensus some elements of the technology may not be mature to be the public facing first point of contact, for a very low likelihood, but potentially catastrophic outcome, however, this Chatbot is not Theranos as commented elsewhere.
Re: Row over Babylon’s chatbot shows lack of regulation
Dear Editor,
I have only recently started following with keen interest the exchanges between Dr Watkins and Babylon Health’s Chatbot. Having trained in the UK before moving to the US, I have some familiarity with cultural and legal differences in how medicine is practiced both sides of the pond and how rapidly the landscape is changing with technology in the US.
A cursory look at the US website’s terms of service compared to the UK is quite illustrative for those inclined; in any case, AI is definitely the future of medicine, here to stay and I applaud Babylon Health for their efforts in filling the void.
I do not feel the concerns about possible missed diagnoses are misplaced, however as their developers generate more data for the algorithms, the issues raised will be ironed out reducing the risks. I am sure many of you recall your House Officer positions back then.
I think there is consensus some elements of the technology may not be mature to be the public facing first point of contact, for a very low likelihood, but potentially catastrophic outcome, however, this Chatbot is not Theranos as commented elsewhere.
Competing interests: No competing interests