71–80 of 253 posts
Is the style a result of the default rules that OpenAI is using? Or is it derived automatically from the material chatGPT was trained on?
Is there a name for this 5 paragraph response format, that feels so intrinsic to chatGPT? (5 paragraphs: General empathy, specific, empathy, technical explanation, establishing trust, reassurance) Is the style a result of the default rules that OpenAI is using? Or is it derived automatically from the material chatGPT was trained on?
My most charitable interpretation is that the anecdote is true but the article itself was written by some one else and is more of an 'inspired by real events' situation.
Side note; does anyone actually think that chat gpt succeeds at rewriting things 'compassionately' or 'more intelligently'? From what I have seen the actual output more resembles caricature than the requested results, in the same way that corporate communications frequently parody earnest communication.
Who is surprised that in a match between a doctor's bedside manner and a machine's that a machine wins? The cold metal of a machine is nothing next to the coldness of a doctor's heart! ;)
My takeaway isn't how useful ChatGPT is, but how useless the doctor is, and by extension, how poorly the the field of medicine is that it doesn't adequately train doctors to have better bedside manner. Regardless of my state of agitation, I would most definitely not want to be read a script prepared by an AI. In fact, were I to find out after the fact, I'd be even more incensed.
Digging deeper (as the comment above alone isn't worthy of HN, IMO): "People believe what they want to believe because of small sample sizes. When there isn't a black & white answer people go back to their personal experience, which is limited. They will not be right in the way you want to be right if you're practicing medicine." The family members are certainly exhibiting this. Are any of us, in this discussion?
Additional question: "Who is the patient? Is it the anxious family members who are being treated, or the person with fluid in the lungs?" The person with fluid in the lungs is the patient and the doc needs to be spending time on that person (the one who will die if not treated correctly). The family members are important but not in need of medical care. They can be handed off to an AI in the short term.
From my own vantage point, I've observed that the context switching between "caring for patient" and "dealing with family" can put a substantial drag on cognitive function for physicians. They do need to suck it up and deal with it since family members are the primary way in which patients receive post-release care in the US due to the non-existent safety net, and family member presence can really improve outcomes, but I'm not surprised that ChatGPT helps in producing the sort of bland prose that is well-received by family members.
This really feels farcical, and kind of like vc bros hyping up a product. Considering this was a serious issue of life and death of a patient, it was surprising how it read like a prank or like the scene from Harold and Kumar, where Kumar plays a fake doctor and saves an ER patient through sheer luck. I know some doctors are full of baloney but c'mon. I really hope maybe that we create better doctors that have a lot…
If ChatGPT can help someone perform better in their area of weakness, great. If it can help super smart people get information out of their heads, great.
I'm having a hard time buying this anecdote. Not even the bit where its implied that multiple people read the same script multiple times and that worked for soothing people, but the actual content of the before and after; the gpt version doesn't explain it any differently and the 'compassionate' writing was absurd. My most charitable interpretation is that the anecdote is true but the article itself was written by so…
I've seen non-native English speakers (co-worker) use it to write lengthy apologies to customers, and I (native speaker) think it sounds over the top sincere and dramatic, especially when the same person tends to talk in a completely different manner.
I believe this story, because the customer in this case was satisfied too
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See my sibling comment just posted, I don't belive that's relevant. You can always screw up facts, it's a high bar. A loosely constrained example of an empathetic speech much easier. Despite the fact that medicine deals in facts (and this would hold true for an even more black and white discipline) so all you need in principle to learn from are a few examples, while empathy is much more subtle and would require a rep…
> the fact that medicine deals in facts medicine benefits from facts, but is largely based on experienced, expert opinion
Most English dictionaries explicitly separate out “formal judgment by an expert” as a distinct meaning for “opinion” from the more common meaning of personal subjective no-facts-needed belief.
Experience, Knowledge, Accountability, and Human touch. No amount of "AI" is going to change that and I'm saying that as a software engineer.
A doctor might have everything you describe. But they don't have the time, energy, or desire to spend much time discussing things with patients.
Similar to a car mechanic. They know a lot. And if it's their car or their father's question, they can probably walk you through rebuilding an engine over the phone. But try getting a real answer out of one during a visit.
The power of some of these AI bots is that you can query them to your hearts desire until you are really satisfied.