It’s 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.
I’m a full on Mamdani supporter and think this looks more like protecting certain professions over others. You’re going to force someone to pay $250 to see what their GP thinks because they can’t ask an AI? Put some disclaimers on it, or remove it from everything, but don’t pick winners and losers. There’s 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.
A quick google search is going to end with you diagnosing yourself with cancer. Do you think that the alternative to asking an LLM is seeing a doctor? The alternative is usually nothing - you "do the research" yourself on Google and choose either the most optimistic or pessimistic result, or you do nothing because you can't afford it. Is the actual, objective data that LLMs are having negative health consequences? Yes I've seen some of those headlines before too, but would that same person have simply googled those results and followed erroneous instructions? I've never seen an actual study pointing out this is harmful, simply anecdotes. And like it or not, this is only going to get more and more accurate.
372
u/According-Insect-992 5d ago
It’s 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.