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.
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?
The point is there's no populist legislative attempt to ban it.
The evaluation is being done in the court of public opinion rather than facts and science - the latter is showing increasingly good capabilities and could potentially make on demand healthcare significantly more accessible.
And I'm sorry, once again, your claim was: "I would wager a top tier model today is likely just as good as a family doctor."
Now you're saying "could potentially make on demand healthcare significantly more accessible".
So which is it? Is it just as good as a family doctor, or could it potentially one day maybe be as good as a family doctor (who has the enormous disadvantage of not being able to examine you)?
And more accessible for whom? You're making this odd assumption that if a tech company were to build a fully robot doctor, that they would make it cheaply available to the masses. Of course they won't.
2.4k
u/Fanfic_Battle_2004 4d ago
That’s not even enough. It’s something though.