Hello to you,
my answer was not directed towards you but to the person above who also commented here. So far, I have made no judgement of what you have written yourself. The comment of that user though got my attention.

I referred in particular to this paragraph:

One of the most promising applications of AI is in the field of healthcare. AI-powered systems can help doctors and researchers analyze vast amounts of data to identify patterns and develop new treatments for diseases. AI can also be used to monitor patients remotely and provide personalized care, improving outcomes and reducing costs.

When I read such sentences, I only see a surface that completely leaves out the relationship between doctor and patient in the topic of "treatment". A doctor learns about the successes and failures in his practice from the feedback of his patients. The most effective feedback can only be grasped by the doctor through years of training, on an interpersonal level, expressed through physical signals - besides verbal ones - between these two. Through this, a doctor gradually recognises which of his methods resonate and which do not. People are quite capable of recognising patterns without even always being aware of it. The art of a profession is very difficult to capture in data, because the quality in the relationship is something felt, which, as soon as one tries to put it into words or tries to determine it in questionnaires, has a rather reductive effect.

The tendency that I perceive everywhere is that data analyses were increasing in the most diverse professions, the time spent on documentation taking up a lot of space in daily working life and the actual work being impaired as a result. Data collection became a chore, but has steadily grown as a work arrangement.

The progressive, technical solution for this time-consuming data input is to capture this data as quickly as possible and to no longer have the tedious input via keyboard, but clicks and scans within seconds, now "in passing".
For a long time, however, such recording systems did not exist and therefore, since the computer has existed, man has become one who feeds the computer with data. He became its servant. The relationship between man and machine has turned out to the disadvantage of this man-to-human activity. However, it is apparently the opinion that this will turn around at "some point", when technology has developed "far enough".

It would be interesting to ask what the last forty or fifty years have brought about in the human-to-human relationship and what kind of world view has been created by the fact that man has turned himself into an operator (input worker).

While the profession of analyst and statistician has certainly benefited from big data and has been able to make a living out of it, the previous factory and industrial worker has gradually become a desk worker and data supplier for those who deal scientifically with the data. Over the same period, the average data-enterer has become dumber, not smarter.

I personally am a good example of this. I got my first education after school as a businesswoman specialising in health insurance. After my education, which was very sound and widely encompassing, I started working in my profession. Very quickly I realised that the actual work lagged far behind the quality of my training. I found that we desk workers covered most of the departments. Sitting in the open-plan office, we received morning mail baskets that we had to work through at a great pace every day. All I did was data entry. Insureds, whom we also had to process, were then such a nuisance and burden that we tried to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Otherwise I would not have managed to process the daily mail.

The inbox became my nemesis, I got into a lot of stress, knowing that if I fell just one day behind, I would be faced with several times more data entry the next day. Rather on a subconscious, uncomfortable level, I realised that this work was inhuman. If it was a matter of getting rid of customers who appeared in person as quickly as possible in favour of data entry, then there was something wrong with this system.

I lacked human contact, I felt like a drone. If you stay in this profession, you learn to protect yourself from human demands and keep your distance. What you don't learn is how to deal with conflict, negotiation and relationship. Nothing is left to you, you have no decision-making or discretionary power in this profession. You act strictly according to guidelines and programmes. Technological progress in this health sector has led to an increase in the pace of data collection. Paper files have been replaced by electronic files. So we have given more than one generation of people careers (or better "jobs") that gave them only desk work and desk experience. A very confined and limited field of human labour and ability.

I do not share the utopian hope that AI will compensate for this dumbing down that has taken place in the meantime. I do not believe in progress on that scale. All advantages always have their disadvantageous counterparts.
So there are many decades between the beginning of this data collection and today, which often play no role in the considerations of utopias.
Probably the greatest uncertainty factor in the provision of data is its accuracy. Also, the time scale. To have good data, the question is always "How far back do you have to go to have a comparable set of data to which you can refer?"

I hope, my answer reveals my concerns and does not sound as if I did not refer to the topic.

Greetings to you.