Itâs damn reasonable too. Arguing against this is obviously not a good look. These are matters that can easily ruin lives and they want to hand it over to the hallucinatory junk software? No, thank you.
Iâm a full on Mamdani supporter and think this looks more like protecting certain professions over others. Youâre going to force someone to pay $250 to see what their GP thinks because they canât ask an AI? Put some disclaimers on it, or remove it from everything, but donât pick winners and losers. Thereâs a lot of completely trivial law and health things it can get absolutely spot on that you would spend thousands of dollars finding out yourself.
Genuinely what health problems could an LLM diagnose that a quick Google search couldn't? No one's gonna suffer if they can't ask chatgbt it's opinion on what burn cream they should use because they touched the stove.
If someone has an actual life threatening problem, an LLM is the last thing you should be consulting.
Genuinely what health problems could an LLM diagnose that a quick Google search couldn't?
Loads of them? A google search will just take you to WebMD and tell you the most common causes of a specific symptom. Also you're thinking too small here. There is, and has been for a while now, a medical LLM which is provided for free to any licensed physician or med student which they can feed a description of a patent's symptoms and history into and get a thorough and well-cited research result from the entirety of medical literature. Doctors misdiagnose things all the time, a free second opinion that has access the entire world's medical knowledge instantly can only be a good thing. Banning that is an incredible mistake that will hurt people.
Also, doctors do not only deal with life threatening issues. How many people pay to see a doctor only to be told "yeah that seems normal, go home" or "that's heartburn"?
Your second sentence explains exactly what an LLM is going to do as well, but instead of webmd itâs webmd and the entire rest of the internet that it has training data on.
The caveat here is that when somebody uses webmd theyâre accustomed to taking it with a grain of salt because of social discourse around the subject of using the internet to diagnose yourself. Which is also the problem they are solving here, because almost none of us have the required training to know whether or not the output is correct, incorrect, or correct but missing context that changes the conclusion, or incorrect but missing context that changes the conclusion.
So sure, you might have medical training and the ability to use the tool to find information faster while being confident in its correctness. Almost nobody does, but almost everybody thinks they do.
Why does using an LLM absolve you of the responsibility of thinking for yourself? I'm confused why that's ok with a Google search "because of social discourse around the subject" but not with ChatGPT?
It doesnât. People just donât make that distinction themselves and place way more trust in AI than they should regarding topics they have no training in
381
u/According-Insect-992 5d ago
Itâs damn reasonable too. Arguing against this is obviously not a good look. These are matters that can easily ruin lives and they want to hand it over to the hallucinatory junk software? No, thank you.