I’m a doctor: Here’s what I found when I asked ChatGPT to diagnose my patients • Hacker News Board

Re: I’m a doctor: Here’s what I found when I asked ChatGPT to diagnose my patients

#171

Post by dreamcompiler » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 4:38 AM UTC

civilized wrote: post #37

gilbetron wrote: post #24

Being a scifi geek and AI geek and neuroscience geek for pretty much the past 40 years, I've read countless predictions and scenarios and stories about society's response as "true" AI begins to emerge. So watching it play out for real is creating this bizarre sense of deja vu combined with fascination and frustration and also some anxiety. This article and the comments in this thread are right up that alley. I mean,…

What I didn't predict is so many AI boosters being so miffed at regular folks pointing out the obvious: a half-working system may be tremendously exciting to AI enthusiasts, but it's not that useful to society. Recently we've had all these people complaining of moving goalposts, when in fact most people never had goalposts for AI in the first place, and certainly never had goalposts that remotely resembled those that…

A half-working system is cute and useful when it recommends a pizza place you might like. But the same system is a menace to society when you tell it to drive a car or prescribe a drug to treat an illness or decide a person's prison sentence or protect a perimeter with lethal force.

It's absolutely amazing that so many AI scientists don't seem to understand this distinction.

Re: I’m a doctor: Here’s what I found when I asked ChatGPT to diagnose my patients

#172

Post by hollandays » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 4:42 AM UTC

chezelenkoooo wrote: post #149

dougmwne wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the self driving car argument applied to things it doesn’t fit. Sure, unless a self driving car is several 9’s reliable, it’s not terribly useful for society. That’s because there’s no way for a human to be safely in the loop at highway speed. But a LLM assisting a wide rage of professionals at even a low accuracy could be part of an efficient workflow, allowing for be doctor or lawyer to give quality service…

The author touches on this in the very article linked. His point is that the low accuracy answers provided by ChatGPT risks reinforcing the doctor's biases and then not thinking outside the box. In other words it risks the doctor blindly trusting the AI too much.

The inherent problem with chat bots is you can't investigate why they're telling you something. When I search Google, I'm critically evaluating the information, and it's frustrating when the results it gives are low-accuracy. If I ask a chat bot a question, what would I do with the answer if it might be wrong? There's no context for me to evaluate.

Re: I’m a doctor: Here’s what I found when I asked ChatGPT to diagnose my patients

#173

Post by singularity2001 » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 4:48 AM UTC

dreamcompiler wrote: post #171

civilized wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I didn't predict is so many AI boosters being so miffed at regular folks pointing out the obvious: a half-working system may be tremendously exciting to AI enthusiasts, but it's not that useful to society. Recently we've had all these people complaining of moving goalposts, when in fact most people never had goalposts for AI in the first place, and certainly never had goalposts that remotely resembled those that…

A half-working system is cute and useful when it recommends a pizza place you might like. But the same system is a menace to society when you tell it to drive a car or prescribe a drug to treat an illness or decide a person's prison sentence or protect a perimeter with lethal force. It's absolutely amazing that so many AI scientists don't seem to understand this distinction.

A half working system is good enough for real life tasks when combined and used by and in conjunction with attentive half working human collaborators.

Re: I’m a doctor: Here’s what I found when I asked ChatGPT to diagnose my patients

#174

Post by sjducb » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 4:50 AM UTC

flir wrote: post #46

This is how I played doctor with ChatGPT. > Do you know what an Expert System is? [describes expert system] > I'd like you to emulate an expert system while I play the role of a patient. Expert systems ask questions in order to produce a diagnosis. I would like you to ask me a series of questions, and respond with a diagnosis when you feel confident. Alright, I'll do my best to emulate an expert system. Please keep i…

I suspected it would do better with good prompt engineering

Re: I’m a doctor: Here’s what I found when I asked ChatGPT to diagnose my patients

#175

Post by noobermin » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 4:56 AM UTC

dreamcompiler wrote: post #171

civilized wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I didn't predict is so many AI boosters being so miffed at regular folks pointing out the obvious: a half-working system may be tremendously exciting to AI enthusiasts, but it's not that useful to society. Recently we've had all these people complaining of moving goalposts, when in fact most people never had goalposts for AI in the first place, and certainly never had goalposts that remotely resembled those that…

A half-working system is cute and useful when it recommends a pizza place you might like. But the same system is a menace to society when you tell it to drive a car or prescribe a drug to treat an illness or decide a person's prison sentence or protect a perimeter with lethal force. It's absolutely amazing that so many AI scientists don't seem to understand this distinction.

To be clear, a lot of them aren't "AI scientists," just hypemen, many of them who came into the "tech" world chasing crypto.

Re: I’m a doctor: Here’s what I found when I asked ChatGPT to diagnose my patients

#176

Post by akasakahakada » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 4:59 AM UTC

1. What version is he using?

2. It is all your fault that not providing all usefull information (like, my patient seems pregnant) and let the system to guess what you want.

Re: I’m a doctor: Here’s what I found when I asked ChatGPT to diagnose my patients

#177

Post by noobermin » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 5:00 AM UTC

Turskarama wrote: post #105

MVissers wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. For AI to be useful it needs to be better at the job than how the job currently being done. We humans rely on thousands of things where an approximate solution is fine. Especially when it's about interacting with other humans. Programming is an exception, but what % of the population are programmers and engineers?

Programmers, engineers, accountants, lawyers, doctors, nurses, builders, farmers, manufacturers, drivers (including pilots and ships captains), and scientists all need to be very precise in their work and mistakes will cause deaths (I have almost certainly forgotten some). This may not be the majority of workers by number, but these are the jobs civilization is _built_ on, they are the jobs that need to keep going no…

I would put cooks into that too, allergic reactions can kill, badly cooked food can kill, and in fact people can be penalized for it too.

Re: I’m a doctor: Here’s what I found when I asked ChatGPT to diagnose my patients

#178

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 5:06 AM UTC

singularity2001 wrote: post #173

dreamcompiler wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A half-working system is cute and useful when it recommends a pizza place you might like. But the same system is a menace to society when you tell it to drive a car or prescribe a drug to treat an illness or decide a person's prison sentence or protect a perimeter with lethal force. It's absolutely amazing that so many AI scientists don't seem to understand this distinction.

A half working system is good enough for real life tasks when combined and used by and in conjunction with attentive half working human collaborators.

[deleted]

Re: I’m a doctor: Here’s what I found when I asked ChatGPT to diagnose my patients

#179

Post by 3np » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 5:11 AM UTC

lisper wrote: post #110

civilized wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I didn't predict is so many AI boosters being so miffed at regular folks pointing out the obvious: a half-working system may be tremendously exciting to AI enthusiasts, but it's not that useful to society. Recently we've had all these people complaining of moving goalposts, when in fact most people never had goalposts for AI in the first place, and certainly never had goalposts that remotely resembled those that…

> a half-working system may be tremendously exciting to AI enthusiasts, but it's not that useful to society. A half-working system might actually be worse than useless if people believe it 100% of the time.

And a 98% working system even worse due to it being treated as 100%.

Re: I’m a doctor: Here’s what I found when I asked ChatGPT to diagnose my patients

#180

Post by jschveibinz » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 5:21 AM UTC

gilbetron wrote: post #24

Being a scifi geek and AI geek and neuroscience geek for pretty much the past 40 years, I've read countless predictions and scenarios and stories about society's response as "true" AI begins to emerge. So watching it play out for real is creating this bizarre sense of deja vu combined with fascination and frustration and also some anxiety. This article and the comments in this thread are right up that alley. I mean,…

This is spot on. I keep thinking that it has to do with our collective ability in both recognizing change and accepting change.

I commented a couple of days ago that we feel that the slope of change is relatively flat. As if the current snapshot of AI capabilities is somehow the way it’s going to be for awhile.

But in fact, the slope of technology change is almost vertical. A year or two from now, AI will be a very (perhaps radically) different capability unless something is done to interrupt its development.