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

#341

Post by hammyhavoc » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 5:57 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #175

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.

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

Came here to say this. Just like with crypto.

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

#342

Post by hammyhavoc » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 5:58 PM UTC

morelisp wrote: post #221

epups wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about helping correct the grammar and style of an article? Writing out boring code? Creating a test for code you already have? These are all tasks that have important economic consequences. AI is not half-bad at them, it is actually approaching human levels of performance. If we continue to improve AI, maybe one day its performance in these critical tasks you describe will also surpass humans.

Is it actually approaching human levels of performance, or are we continually reducing the commercially acceptable skill level of all of these things?

I don't think it's anything approaching human-level performance unless the humans you're hiring are inappropriate for the role in the first place.

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

#343

Post by weaksauce » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 5:59 PM UTC

famouswaffles wrote: post #61

weaksauce wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it wasn't mentioned anywhere in there which version of the model he was using... how are you so sure?

he references 3 when he talks about passing the exam. and i guess i doubt he'd evaluate 4 and not say anything about it.

they didn't specifically mention 3 in the linked article or in the linked linked article and they ran both 3 and 4 against those exams so I'm not sure either way. probably was 3 but I can't be certain.

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

#344

Post by AH4oFVbPT4f8 » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 6:20 PM UTC

petilon wrote: post #164

AH4oFVbPT4f8 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have case that 5 doctors so far can't explain. I fed in what was happening (generally speaking) and it provided a rather good list of what it "might" be. I then asked it to start describing each scenario and I was able to determine nope, that's not it or if it was plausible. Meeting with doctor no 6 tomorrow to talk about what it could be but at least I have a better insight at what the more obvious possibilities.…

How does it matter to the doctor if the car accident was the cause of your issues?

Because America, but seriously, they don't want to get in the middle of who pays, health or car insurance so they just wont see anyone who gets referral with car accident mentioned.

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

#345

Post by AH4oFVbPT4f8 » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 6:21 PM UTC

trogdor wrote: post #187

petilon wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does it matter to the doctor if the car accident was the cause of your issues?

I think some doctors don’t want to get involved with patients who are involved in litigation regarding the reason for their visit.

I hope this is the reason instead of waiting on payment. My case is a single car accident where I'm 100% at fault so there is no issue of litigation here

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

#346

Post by colonCapitalDee » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 6:29 PM UTC

travisjungroth wrote: post #96

colonCapitalDee wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT's heuristic may lead it to emit a sequence of words that suggest to English speakers that they should provide clarification, but ChatGPT is congenitally incapable of determining that answering a question requires more information that was provided in the prompt and that clarification is needed. Rephrased, ChatGPT can ask for clarification, but only as a side effect of satisfying it's heuristic.

Calling it a "side effect" is really downplaying things. All of its behavior is just satisfying its heuristic. Just did this chat on 3.5. [Me] Boxes that are black with stars have gold inside. Black with circles means silver. Blue with squares means copper and blue with triangles means tin. Your job is to determine the contents of the box. If you need more information, ask for it. Example: User: I have a black box. A…

"A computer can store and operate on data"

"That's really downplaying things. My computer can play cat videos"

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

#347

Post by travisjungroth » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 6:37 PM UTC

colonCapitalDee wrote: post #346

travisjungroth wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it a "side effect" is really downplaying things. All of its behavior is just satisfying its heuristic. Just did this chat on 3.5. [Me] Boxes that are black with stars have gold inside. Black with circles means silver. Blue with squares means copper and blue with triangles means tin. Your job is to determine the contents of the box. If you need more information, ask for it. Example: User: I have a black box. A…

"A computer can store and operate on data" "That's really downplaying things. My computer can play cat videos"

Change your first line to “a computer is congenitally incapable of providing entertainment. It can provide entertainment, but only as a side effect of storing and operating on data” and it would be more applicable to this exchange.

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

#348

Post by morelisp » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 8:30 PM UTC

hammyhavoc wrote: post #342

morelisp wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it actually approaching human levels of performance, or are we continually reducing the commercially acceptable skill level of all of these things?

I don't think it's anything approaching human-level performance unless the humans you're hiring are inappropriate for the role in the first place.

Just wait a few years.

Today: "Senior" devs by virtue of knowing the cookbook of, at most, one stack.

2028: "Senior" devs by knowing when GPT-12 output POST when it should have been PUT.

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

#349

Post by hammyhavoc » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 8:47 PM UTC

morelisp wrote: post #348

hammyhavoc wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's anything approaching human-level performance unless the humans you're hiring are inappropriate for the role in the first place.

Just wait a few years. Today: "Senior" devs by virtue of knowing the cookbook of, at most, one stack. 2028: "Senior" devs by knowing when GPT-12 output POST when it should have been PUT.

The subject at hand is today, not tomorrow.

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

#350

Post by leobg » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 9:52 PM UTC

lumb63 wrote: post #219

The tail end of this article, where the author talks about how many more patients he could see in his life if he had AI assistance, made me realize that part of healthcare cannot be solved by AI. The goal is not to see more patients; the goal is to help more patients get better. For a lot of patients who are frustrated and have not had their problems validated and have been to many doctors and seen no results or poor…

That’s an argument against legal AI as well. The idea being that the citizen has a right to be heard by the state. And that an AI handling a case is not really “hearing“ the citizen.

Then, again, before Al Capone, nobody in their right mind would’ve argued that the state should share the profits of criminals through income tax. That idea went down the drain very fast. Wouldn’t be surprised to see the same thing happening to the idea of “being heard“ by the state.