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

81–90 of 101 posts

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

#81

Post by amrocha »

goralph wrote: post #66
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?

Better stewards than Apple?

Yeah I think so, although I think they're both very good.

I feel like Google has already established how they use data, whereas I'm not so sure with Apple.

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

#82

Post by sagarm »

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…

"get certified" meaning hospitals can bill for this, which is what will actually get them to adopt something new.

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

#83

Post by Blackthorn »

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…

Great, we already have issues with diffusing responsibility into opaque algorithms, now we've got people cheering a full speed run into it.

We've sure come a long way from "a computer cannot be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision".

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

#84

Post by tangjurine »

killjoywashere wrote: post #73
beefield wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Ask an LLM unless the time it would take to ask would risk significant harm.

That seems to cover all your cases?

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

#85

Post by minsc_and_boo »

antegamisou wrote: post #56
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…

Peak SV techbro moment.

I feel like this is unfair, because Epic Systems could recommend ICD10 codes based on the listed symptoms. The doctor would pick the final diagnosis code from the recommended list or their own. That doesn't mean Epic shoulders the liability.

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

#86

Post by troupo »

tangjurine wrote: post #84
killjoywashere wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ask an LLM unless the time it would take to ask would risk significant harm. That seems to cover all your cases?

> That seems to cover all your cases?

It doesn't. LLMs are trained on literature. Women and people of color are severely underrepresented in medical literature.

E.g., patients of color are rarely selected for clinical trials etc.

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

#87

Post by NeuroCoder »

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…

Utility here depends on what type of practice it is. ED doc on no sleep and only 10 minutes for a patient, maybe. But it would be useless in something like psychiatry

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

#88

Post by RoseRose »

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 really wish people would use terms like "unjustified false statement" rather than "hallucination", which connotes perception that doesn't exist.

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

#89

Post by syndicatedjelly »

antegamisou wrote: post #56
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…

Peak SV techbro moment.

What does that mean?

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

#90

Post by syndicatedjelly »

tangjurine wrote: post #84
killjoywashere wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ask an LLM unless the time it would take to ask would risk significant harm. That seems to cover all your cases?

We should require software engineers to do the same. So much garbage code I've reviewed that would have easily been resolved had the SE just "asked an LLM".

Maybe we can legislate this into existence as well?

Post reply on HN