Implications of conscious AI in primary healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conversation about consciousness of artificial intelligence (AI) is an ongoing topic since 1950s. Despite the numerous applications of AI identified in healthcare and primary healthcare, little is known about how a conscious AI would reshape its use in this domain. While there is a wide range of ideas as to whether AI can or cannot possess consciousness, a prevailing theme in all arguments is uncertainty. Given this uncertainty and the high stakes associated with the use of AI in primary healthcare, it is imperative to be prepared for all scenarios including conscious AI systems being used for medical diagnosis, shared decision-making and resource management in the future. This commentary serves as an overview of some of the pertinent evidence supporting the use of AI in primary healthcare and proposes ideas as to how consciousnesses of AI can support or further complicate these applications. Given the scarcity of evidence on the association between consciousness of AI and its current state of use in primary healthcare, our commentary identifies some directions for future research in this area including assessing patients', healthcare workers' and policy-makers' attitudes towards consciousness of AI systems in primary healthcare settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".