The AI Disease Equity Conundrum

As AI breakthroughs rapidly transform medicine, cures for previously incurable diseases are becoming inevitable. Advanced algorithms are discovering personalized treatments for cancer, genetic disorders, and chronic illnesses, promising a healthier future. But this certainty of progress raises uncomfortable, deeper questions beyond simply having or not having cures.If AI-generated medical breakthroughs initially favor wealthier nations or individuals due to costs or access, healthcare inequity could sharply increase—not simply between rich and poor, but between entire populations. Over time, the healthiest segments of humanity might gain genetic, biological, or cognitive advantages, effectively creating two distinct classes: those whose health and lifespan are AI-enhanced, and those left behind in a biological status quo.This isn't a debate about whether we will use AI to cure disease—we surely will. Instead, it’s a complex ethical question of what happens after: Who gets prioritized, who decides, and how society manages a potentially permanent divide?The conundrum:As AI inevitably leads to disease cures, should society actively intervene to ensure these breakthroughs are evenly and immediately accessible, even if it slows innovation or limits investment? Or should we prioritize speed and progress first, accepting initial inequality in the hope it eventually balances out—at the risk of permanently dividing humanity into biological “haves” and “have-nots”?This podcast is created by AI. We used ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google NotebookLM's audio overview to create the conversation you are hearing. We do not make any claims to the validity of the information provided and see this as an experiment around deep discussions fully generated by AI.