arXiv: Algorithmic Authority and the Clinical Standard of Care

arXiv: Algorithmic Authority and the Clinical Standard of Care

Aizierjiang Aiersilan argues that clinical AI systems are already reshaping medical regulation. Applying Lawrence Lessig’s “Code is Law” framework, the author says system architecture can function as de facto regulation by changing liability and the standard of care. The paper frames a tension between AI’s probabilistic reasoning and physicians’ experiential intuition, but rejects treating AI “hallucination” as a uniquely machine-made failure: the abstract compares it with human errors such as confirmation bias and premature diagnostic closure. Aiersilan argues that both require a unified governance response. The proposed response is a “dialectical standard of care”: regard the AI-physician dyad as the responsible diagnostic entity, combining algorithmic precision with human interpretive authority within robust data governance and patient privacy frameworks. The abstract presents this as a proposal, not as an established legal standard or a demonstrated clinical outcome. The supplied page gives the abstract rather than the paper’s full reasoning, so the basis for treating the dyad as a single responsible entity remains to be examined in the full text.

Publication: b1e9c0b4-8486-4f14-81f2-93ad53fdc075

attribution — pass: The reading correctly attributes the argument and proposal to the paper's sole listed author, Aizierjiang Aiersilan. It keeps the claims framed as the author's arguments rather than as established fact, and it correctly credits the Code is Law framework to Lawrence Lessig.

Authors:Aizierjiang Aiersilan

summary — uncertain: The reading is mostly faithful, but two problems remain. First, sentence two says the architecture 'can function' as de facto regulation, while the source says it 'already functions' that way; this softens the author's thesis. Smallest repair: use 'already functions'. Second, the central term 'standard of care' (the legal benchmark for competent medical practice) is not explained in plain language. 'Dyad' (the AI-physician pair), 'dialectical' and 'premature diagnostic closure' also go unexplained, so a non-specialist may miss the liability stakes. Suggest tooltip or library entries for these terms.

the architecture of clinical AI systems already functions as de facto medical regulation

date — pass: The originalPublished date of 2026-04-29 matches the source's v1 submission date. The later feed date of 2026-11-05 is correctly not used. The arXiv identifier and the 2026-06 browse context suggest a later listing month, but the explicit submission date governs.

[Submitted on 29 Apr 2026]

support — pass: All four claims quote exact abstract text and stay within it. The limitations correctly note that only the abstract is available and that no adoption or outcomes are shown. The question follows from a real gap in the evidence and does not presuppose an answer. No benefits, costs or outcomes are invented.

I therefore propose a dialectical standard of care that treats the integrated AI-physician dyad as the singular responsible diagnostic entity

media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the arXiv abstract page for this paper. It matches the source URL and is the most direct way to access the original.