Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper explores the parallels between clinical translation in medicine and the development of machine learning (ML) systems, arguing that epistemic and methodological standards from medicine can inform ML practices. By employing generative analogies, the authors identify key warrants of clinical translation and demonstrate their applicability to ML, particularly through a reliabilist lens. The findings suggest a novel framework for ML reliabilism that enhances the reliability of ML systems while remaining compatible with existing philosophical accounts.
Clinical translation standards could revolutionize how we ensure the reliability of machine learning systems.
In the past few years, machine learning (ML) has been widely (and to an extent, successfully) implemented in medicine. However, uncertainties surrounding ML have made it difficult to establish the bases of its epistemic and methodological warrants. In the literature, a parallel has been drawn between medicine and ML, suggesting that we should model epistemic and methodological standards for ML on the standards of clinical translation. By developing tools from Hesse work, we characterise the nature of this parallel as a generative analogy between the process of clinical translation and the process of building ML systems. We identify more precisely the epistemic and methodological warrants of clinical translation that are typically only mentioned when appealing to the analogy, and we show in which sense such warrants apply analogically to the context of ML. In particular, we interpret warrants of clinical translation in reliabilist terms, and we show how this can inform a new form of ML reliabilism, which is distinct from (though compatible with) existing reliabilist accounts in philosophy of AI.
