"The boy who cried wolf" is a story about false positives, so if that's what you want to avoid then you want to get close to 100% specificity, and accept that there are many things that the tool will not catch. If, as you propose, the tool would mainly be used to create a low confidence list of potential problems that will be further reviewed by a human, then casting a wide net and calibrating for high sensitivity instead does make sense.

I think this is mixing streams here.

Try narrowing the scope to remove the word 'AI' and just think 'Blood Test'.

We accept that machines can do these things faster and better than humans, and we don't lose sleep over it.

The AI will be faster and better than humans at so many things, obviously.

"Hipprocatic Oath" isn't hugely relevant to diagnosis etc.

These are systems we are measuring, that's it.

Obviously - treatment and other things, we'll need 'Hipprocatic Humans' ... but most of this is Engineering.

I don't think doctors will even trust their own judgment for many things for very long, their role will evolve as it has for a long time.

What do imperfect, biased and expensive human doctors add to the « liability and ethics » question exactly?

Assume if you know for certain that AI has better senstivity and specificity than your local physician for the particular diagnosis, which likely would be the case now or in few years. Would you purposefully get inferior consultation just because of Hippocatic oath?