Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#71

Post by pineal »

beefield wrote: post #50

Having spent some time with a hallucinating ChatGPT and having spent some time with doctors during my life, at this point, in my humble opinion, it should be made illegal for a doctor to make a diagnosis without consulting an LLM finetuned with all the medical research and literature available. Ah, but copyright/patents/IP. Well, IP was created to foster production of useful immaterial stuff. If you now want to use i…

I'm a physician and use chatGPT extensively for coding, writing, and general knowledge inquiry.

With 60-70% correct rates on most training sets and 0.63 critical errors per report, for any physician not very well-versed with the limitations of LLMs, this is more of a liability than an asset. Some of the biggest barriers to care are cognitive, such as anchoring or availability biases. LLMs in their current state will only muddy the water.

Good physicians already know and do use these tools, bad ones will only get worse. A legal mandate will not benefit care.

Doubtless these models will progress to where this calculus will change. The only benefit from a mandate now that I can foresee is to accelerate fine-tuning by forcing widespread reinforcement learning by physicians, but that is a different discussion.

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#72

Post by chaxor »

versteegen wrote: post #9
permanent wrote: post #8

I won't take any of this seriously until they make their model and weights available. This type of PR research is what is really holding back AI for medical images.

My impression of what's holding back improvements to CV and ML for medical images is that close to none of the research in the field will ever be put into practice. There's a huge amount of research done and then the companies actually producing the software used by technicians and doctors choose a tiny number of things to pick up, incorporate, test, get certified, and it takes years. People working in the field have…

Many people in the field are physicists, and they consistently state that even if the performance is better than human, they will not use ML in the field, simply due to explainability. Physicists like having very explainable analytical equations, so handing them a lot of matrices with how to compose them is not convincing.

They may still lose out in time, but not without a battle over explainability.

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#73

Post by killjoywashere »

beefield wrote: post #54
tylerrobinson wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it should be made illegal for a doctor to make a diagnosis without consulting an LLM > All liability stays at the doctor who makes the final diagnosis Sorry, what? You’d force clinicians to use a specific technology (a specific “how” for finding their answer) and also make them liable for the correctness of that answer? You seem to have a strange idea about the law if in the same breath as you make something illega…

> Sorry, what? I did not say the doctor would need to trust the answer. Only that they should be required to ask.

What if they ask another doctor instead?

What if the case is so straightforward (you've see thousands of these, hundreds a year, the entire system is built around them) that you know the diagnosis in less than the blink of an eye?

What if it's emergent, and you have no time to think, like a major hemorrhage? Not only is it obvious, but you must act now, right now?

What if there is a highly studied, routinized process (e.g. cardiac arrest) where you're managing a team going through the diagnostic procedure and treatment, which, over decades, have become a carefully interleaved dance performed at stacatto pace, and, again, there is no time to consult an LLM?

What if? What if? What if?

Are you so certain?

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#74

Post by lucidrains »

beefield wrote: post #50

Having spent some time with a hallucinating ChatGPT and having spent some time with doctors during my life, at this point, in my humble opinion, it should be made illegal for a doctor to make a diagnosis without consulting an LLM finetuned with all the medical research and literature available. Ah, but copyright/patents/IP. Well, IP was created to foster production of useful immaterial stuff. If you now want to use i…

you have no idea what you are talking about

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#75

Post by _ea1k »

beefield wrote: post #50

Having spent some time with a hallucinating ChatGPT and having spent some time with doctors during my life, at this point, in my humble opinion, it should be made illegal for a doctor to make a diagnosis without consulting an LLM finetuned with all the medical research and literature available. Ah, but copyright/patents/IP. Well, IP was created to foster production of useful immaterial stuff. If you now want to use i…

I think it'd be challenging to force anything without unwanted side effects, but there's a lot of merit to this.

Generalists tend to lack the specialized knowledge to diagnose certain things even when the evidence would be clear to a specialist.

NN based approaches have the potential to bridge a real gap here.

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#76

Post by _ea1k »

beefield wrote: post #54
tylerrobinson wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it should be made illegal for a doctor to make a diagnosis without consulting an LLM > All liability stays at the doctor who makes the final diagnosis Sorry, what? You’d force clinicians to use a specific technology (a specific “how” for finding their answer) and also make them liable for the correctness of that answer? You seem to have a strange idea about the law if in the same breath as you make something illega…

> Sorry, what? I did not say the doctor would need to trust the answer. Only that they should be required to ask.

The problem is that it is a short trip from a requirement like that to a required inquiry for those that ignore the answer.

Probably most of the time when they ignore it, they'd be right. After all, neither the NN nor themselves are right 100% of the time.

But is that other case a lawsuit risk? And we've developed into a very risk averse society.

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#77

Post by CoastalCoder »

beefield wrote: post #50

Having spent some time with a hallucinating ChatGPT and having spent some time with doctors during my life, at this point, in my humble opinion, it should be made illegal for a doctor to make a diagnosis without consulting an LLM finetuned with all the medical research and literature available. Ah, but copyright/patents/IP. Well, IP was created to foster production of useful immaterial stuff. If you now want to use i…

Insurance reimbursement rates already force doctors to spend too little time treating each patient.

I'm concerned that misusing LLMs would allow even shorter consultations, and that would become enshrined in reimbursement rates.

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#78

Post by screye »

n0lan wrote: post #3

All being said and done with respect to AI in medicine, Doctors and medical professionals will be the very last people to be replaced. Care (both physical and mental) will be the last bastion of humanity disrupted by AI.

On the contrary, critical scenarios is exactly where tech and AI helps a lot.

You'd think Pilot would be the last type of 'vehicle driver' that would be automated. On the contrary, they were the first to adopt almost 100% self-driving.

> mental

We are finding curious things like 'playing tetris is the most effective way to avoid trauma'. Doctors will help in lab and diagnostic work, but the inference of what solution to administer might actually come from an AI. Ofc, similar to flight, the most challenging situations will still be 'manned' (like fighter jets or non-routine surgery)

Healthcare is inaccessible and understaffed in most parts of the world. If AI doctors can be better than the bottom-10-percentile doctor coming out of a US med-school, then they should be adopted wholesale.

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#79

Post by [deleted] »

lucidrains wrote: post #74
beefield wrote: post #50

Having spent some time with a hallucinating ChatGPT and having spent some time with doctors during my life, at this point, in my humble opinion, it should be made illegal for a doctor to make a diagnosis without consulting an LLM finetuned with all the medical research and literature available. Ah, but copyright/patents/IP. Well, IP was created to foster production of useful immaterial stuff. If you now want to use i…

you have no idea what you are talking about

[deleted]

Re: Google Med-Palm M: Towards Generalist Biomedical AI

#80

Post by amrocha »

visarga wrote: post #47
amrocha wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Google hate crowd is so strange to me. I just don't understand it when Google are probably the best data stewards in the current landscape. I trust Google more than I trust my own government with my data. I guess their support is bad, is that why you're so against them?

And the tone deaf product cancellations.

Right, I think that's a fair criticism, but I don't see how it relates to their data privacy policies.
Post reply on HN