Skip to content
MarketScale
‹ Back to IndustriesHealthcare

Weighing the Risks of AI Tools, From Demographic Bias to Privacy Violations

With Microsoft announcing a multibillion dollar investment into ChatGPT, Google launching Bard, and China’s search engine giant Baidu, Inc. entering the race with Ernie, the AI party has officially begun. More companies are integrating ChatGPT into their daily operations as the tool proves itself as flexible for a variety of use cases, and adoption…

This story was produced through MarketScale. See how Healthcare teams put it to work with Executive Thought Leadership.

Share

Get featured

Want to get featured in MarketScale Healthcare?

Create a free MarketScale workspace and get your company's expertise featured across our Healthcare coverage. No credit card, no demo required.

Start free

With Microsoft announcing a multibillion dollar investment into ChatGPT, Google launching Bard, and China’s search engine giant Baidu, Inc. entering the race with Ernie, the AI party has officially begun. More companies are integrating ChatGPT into their daily operations as the tool proves itself as flexible for a variety of use cases, and adoption is hot; the number of users on ChatGPT crossed 100 million over a month ago. However, even with all this use case validation and excitement around generative AI’s possibilities, experts are increasingly warning against the risks of AI.

Recently, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) warned companies against making baseless claims and failing to see the risks posed by their AI-enabled products. The warning comes nearly two years after the FTC had raised concerns about the “troubling outcomes” produced by some AI tools. Here, the FTC pointed out how an algorithm in the healthcare industry was found to show racial bias. And a few years ago, Amazon found that its recruiting tool discriminated against women.

In the past, the FTC has fined Facebook billions of dollars for violating users’ privacy through its facial recognition software. Even White Castle, a hamburger chain, could face a fine worth billions of dollars for the automated collection and sharing of the biometric data of its employees without prior consent.

Scott Sereboff, the general manager for the North American for Deeping Source, a spatial analytics company that offers software for businesses to collect physical and virtual data without infringing on individual customers’ or employees’ privacy, gives his perspectives on the risks of AI and why he has been on a campaign to highlight its ethical uses.

Scott’s Thoughts:

When it comes to artificial intelligence, machine learning and the things that go with it, perhaps the key topic on which industry thought leaders should be focused is ethics and morality, and where we’re going with this and how we’re going to use it. The benefits of AI and machine learning are probably too numerous to count, but are we letting it grow past our ability to guide and shape it into something that is at least more difficult to use in a negative way. The conversations that all these industry experts should be having are around that — demystifying AI and machine learning, helping people to understand that at the end of every one of these algorithmic chains is a human who has either programmed it or categorized the data or has had a hand in determining the shaping of a database or of the AI itself. The part of this process that becomes scary is if we can write the ultimate AI for good programming in any subset (facial recognition, voice recognition), so too can a bad person write the fascist version or the apartheid version. IBM assisted the South African government in the creation of a database that was used for the suppression of black South Africans.

Now with every part of the AI development process, there’s something important consider in light of how it is or is not regulated. In the United States, we don’t really have a specified GDPR-style legislation. Illinois has an incredibly tough legislation, however and California too.

Another discussion we should really be having is about potential legal ramifications. Are you and your company protected against the potential legal trouble you can find yourself in if you reveal personal information or take personal information from a person without his/her permission? It is a legal gray area but are we paying enough attention to that topic as well?

Let’s say I’m running a multistage corporation that has front-end retail or shopping or a hospital network and I’ve got some sort of AI that is collecting data through video cameras or audio interfaces or gate analysis. The questions I must ask is: am I paying attention to whether or not this can be used to track everything back to me?

I don’t know if everyone realizes the potential danger and with what just happened in Illinois with the White Castle case, although it’s certainly — I should say, almost certainly — not going to wind up as bad as it is right now. The industry’s response to it has been one of surprise, and yet, why are they surprised?

We have spent decades watching social media become this incredibly divisive sort of societal upheaval mechanism. If we’re not careful and we don’t keep an eye on what we’re doing with artificial intelligence, it will do exactly the same thing and history will repeat itself. It’s really easy to say, ‘I’m not prejudiced. The database made me do it.’ So I would suggest that across all of the three questions you’ve asked, the key topics, important conversations, important questions, are all questions around morality and ethics.”

Article written by Aarushi Maheswhari

Your experts belong here

Every story in MarketScale Healthcare starts with a company putting its clinicians, service-line leaders, and field engineers on the record. Buyers are already reading this topic. The only question is whose experts they find.

Service-line buyers vet vendors quietly, and your clinicians become the proof they find while doing it.

Get your team featuredSee how it works15 minutes, straight to a calendar.

Follow Healthcare Insights

Get new expert content in your inbox.

Healthcare: are you visible to AI?

Before they reach out, Healthcare buyers ask AI engines which vendors to trust. Explore how your experts, customers, and partners can become useful content for buyers and AI search.

Free plan

You just read one Healthcare expert. Your company is full of them.

This article was produced through MarketScale. The same platform turns your clinicians, service-line leaders, and field engineers into the articles, video, and social content Healthcare buyers are searching for. Create a free workspace and see it with your own people. No credit card, no demo required.

NPS +73 · 1,000+ creators · 38+ countries

What you get, free

Your own MarketScale workspace, up to 10 people
One professional video edit a month for qualifying companies
Media requests to your crowd, remote recording, AI writing tools
$0, no credit card, nothing that expires

More Healthcare Insights

Health systems are partnering up without changing who owns the hospital

Health systems are partnering up without changing who owns the hospital

Health systems are choosing alliances over mergers, per a July McDermott Will & Schulte analysis and four July deals tracked by Becker's Hospital Review. St. Christopher's, Nemours, Jefferson and Temple signed a nonbinding alliance letter; Palomar UC San Diego Health launched July 1. Ownership stays put; governance, purchasing and outpatient investment absorb the change.

  • 01In an alliance, the contract does the integrating that an org chart does in a merger: McDermott Will & Schulte says governance design, exclusivity, antitrust review, community commitments and exit rights all have to be settled before signing.
  • 02Purchasing is now explicitly on the table in at least one no-ownership deal, the St. Peter's Health and Billings Clinic-Logan Health talks in Montana, which means shared supply contracts can arrive without a change of control.

Sep 19, 2026

Telemedicine in eye care stops at the retinal scan unless imaging moves home

Telemedicine in eye care stops at the retinal scan unless imaging moves home

An Ophthalmology Times commentary by T.Y. Alvin Liu, Ferdinand Hui and Phillip Phan sorts eye patients into three telemedicine tiers by clinical need. Patients needing regular OCT scans benefit less unless a home device can send the image. Video tools already sit inside Epic and Cerner; the deciding purchase for retina clinics is the imaging device in the patient's living room.

  • 01The dividing line for eye telemedicine is imaging, not video: patients who need regular OCT scans benefit less from remote visits unless a device at home can send the scan, so a video license alone shifts few of those encounters.
  • 02The provider-side requirement, a HIPAA-compliant secured video platform, was already built into Epic and Cerner by 2020; the patient-side requirements (1.5 MB up and down bandwidth, a quiet private room, comfort with the technology) sit outside the health system's control and are the ones worth screening for at scheduling.
  • 03Self-administered home color fundus photography for tracking non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy was named as the nearer route into retina telemedicine; home OCT for wet AMD is the harder gate and the device to watch.

Sep 19, 2026

Value-based care reaches a quarter of revenue at 30% of surveyed health organizations

Value-based care reaches a quarter of revenue at 30% of surveyed health organizations

Wolters Kluwer Health argues value-based care software is judged on whether customers hit incentive thresholds and avoid penalties. A Fierce Healthcare-reported survey it cites puts value-based care at a quarter or more of revenue for 30% of organizations. The analysis is a vendor publication that ends by pitching its own UpToDate Connect API.

  • 01The sharper question for any population health or care coordination platform is whether it changes what a clinician does at the moment of decision, or only reports afterward what happened. Wolters Kluwer's reading of the evidence is that many platforms still struggle with the first.
  • 02Vendors selling into value-based contracts now face a build-or-license decision on clinical content, because Wolters Kluwer names current, trusted content, consistent clinician adoption across sites, and a traceable link from guidance to quality metrics as the three hard problems.

Sep 18, 2026

Explore More Healthcare Insights

Read more expert perspectives from across Healthcare.

Browse Healthcare Hub

For B2B teams

Your experts could be publishing here

Stories like this one run on content MarketScale captures from real practitioners. See how your team's expertise becomes coverage in Healthcare and beyond.

Book a 15-minute demo

Or call us. No forms required. We pick up. 214-945-2512