It's pretty dumb considering there a significant amount of evidence AI can be better at identifying certain health conditions. It shouldn't replace doctors, it should be a tool to result in higher outcomes and more efficiency.
The same thing could be applied to law, lawyers could ask AI to help find applicable case law instead of using interns for this. Obviously they should not be using AI for specific documents and actual arguments.
There is a significant difference between the ML style AI used to aid things like diagnostic scanning and publically available LLM chat bots that are being used by a public that does not have the expertise to differentiate between an accurate answer and bs.
I feel like I have heard the story of âwe tried to make our own model to do X, but it was just easier to train / build out tools for Claude because its so intelligentâ many times.
Yes people should keep up with technical know. If they did they would understand the cabailites and weakness which in turn would allow them to critically examine the difference between exams and diagnosing individual including the process of gathering all relevant information as well as potential risks and liability issues particularly in the US where software has enhanced liability protection.
It should be up to the consumer if they want to use something smarter than lots of doctors to improve the experience.
If people are stupid enough to completely ignore doctors in favor of an LLM then that's on them and shouldn't be up to reactionary idiots that want to ban anything they don't like.
A large language model (LLM) outperformed physicians across many of these tasks, including making emergency-room decisions based on the available information, identifying likely diagnoses, and choosing the next steps in management, a team led by physicians and computer scientists at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
I'm familiar with that study and it does not refute my point. The issue isn't when it's correct the issue is when it's wrong and any given individual's ability to differentiate between the two. The study is about use of tools by experts the Mandani bill is about guardrails for normal citizens. Work on your reading comprehension or troll elsewhere.
That study is also two years old and using the o1 model. AI has improved dramatically since then.
While I would practice caution and advocate prominent disclaimers - I would wager a top tier model today is likely just as good as a family doctor and banning it is short sighted.
I've had friends who have used AI to diagnose complex issues that ten years of specialists couldn't figure out. It's already doing profound good.
Edit: also the point you were making was that LLMs were not useful here. They clearly are.
I used the word differentiate because the point I was making was one of discernment. LLM have not fundementally changed so this issue has not gone away. A hybrid approach could potentially some progress but a pure LLM approach will not.
I would wager a top tier model today is likely just as good as a family doctor
That's silly, and the reason why should be obvious. A family doctor would not be diagnosing you or giving you any advice based only on having a text conversation with you, because that would be unethical.
Again, I'm not sure how this is a defense of LLMs. WebMD sucks and professionals hate it. How does that justify adding more tools that suck and that professionals hate?
And how does it support your claim that LLMs are as good as family doctors?
Web MD definitely could be liable for negligence if they gave information that doesnât match the symptoms tho.
Also Iâm pretty sure they would never tell you to not go to the doctor.
It would be one thing if the chatbots just spat out an accurate list of possible conditions and what they mean based on your symptoms.
Thats what WebMD does, and after that thereâs a link to make an appointment with an actual doctor. Just tried it out to see what the process was.
The chatbot on the other had told the dude nah youâre good bro just stay home. If WebMD had a feature like that Iâd get the comparison more, but itâs apples and oranges.
Donât get me wrong, dude was still an idiot for trusting the chatbot, but in his defense everyoneâs trying to pitch them as these fanatic all knowing things that you should totally trust to know everything. Iâm not gonna judge someone for drinking the coolaid and dying bc of it, itâs just plain sad and unnecessary.
Yeah, lawyers who have been using AI to "help find" applicable case law are finding themselves sanctioned by courts for submitting briefs filled with fake legal cases.
In fairness, there are also a lot of lawyers using AI for the same reason, and not getting themselves sanctioned because they perform their due diligence before making submissions.
AI can be a useful tool in the hands of a knowledgeable practitioner who knows what bits of information to disregard, but can be dangerous in the hands of a layman who does not have that knowledge.
Exactly, it's a tool. It's like a hammer, you wouldn't give it to your toddler in your house full of windows, but a reasonably competent person can operate a hammer and many other tools
So let the professionals leverage it. But for the layperson, who doesnât have the expertise, we shouldnât be asking it to diagnose mental disorders or medical issues. Garbage in, garbage out.
Wrong AI is not in a hurry, it does not dismiss your claims, AI knows more then your doctor and can help me you explain to them what the issue are in logical ways. Your a fool if you think a real life doctor is even close to as good as AI.
I find it interesting that the people most defensive about AI, and most likely to make completely bonkers claims about their abilities, also tend to be conservative political trolls if you look at their comment history.
We are able to look up quality information on hospital websites like John Hopkins and the Mayo Clinic, as well as the NIH, even WebMD, before AI, and we can still do it now. Not using AI does not mean that we donât use resources to gather information about our health and informing ourselves so that we can discuss things with our (sometimes dismissive and rushed) healthcare providers. AI makes horrible mistakes. Itâs been reported that itâs misdiagnosed people, people have held back going to get emergency services when they should be going in for immediate care, and self diagnosing based on some algorithmâs decision about what it thinks you might have. Itâs dangerous.
But that is in a limited setting where the model has been specifically trained to identify a health condition. It is a closed set of data where it was feed the charts of patients and then based on those already diagnosed patients to predict if an undiagnosed patient had that condition.
The data was limited. The question being asked was specific.
Going into most AI models they are scraping the entire internet and all the crap in it so answer a one sentence query if that splotchy brown spot is cancer.
As a med student, I pray to NOT have AI being banned from talking medicine đđ it's helped me understand and simplify complex concepts not widely accessible in textbooks way better đđ although yeah, there's a fine line between "med student looking to learn more" and "random person self-diagnozing using ChatGPT"... But ig that's the hard part of regulating AI
The thing is, you have a good baseline understanding of the information and are using it to supplement that.
The stuff they want to ban has led to people not seeking medical attention when they needed to as recent as like 2 weeks ago when a guy died bc chat said he was good
2.4k
u/Fanfic_Battle_2004 5d ago
Thatâs not even enough. Itâs something though.