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

ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

ctvnews.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 439 posts

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#101

Post by siva7 »

spullara wrote: post #74

This title is inaccurate. What they are disallowing are users using ChatGPT to offer legal and medical advice to other people. First parties can still use ChatGPT for medical and legal advice for themselves.

There are millions of medical doctors and lawyers using chatgpt for work everyday - good news that from now on only those licensed professionals are allowed to use chatgpt for law and medicine. It's already the case that only licensed developers are allowed to vibe code and use chatgpt to develop software. Everything else would be totally irresponsible.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#102

Post by gitremote »

brandall10 wrote: post #88
dingnuts wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

honestly I think these things cause a form of Gell Mann's Amnesia where when you use them for something you know already, the errors are obvious, but when you use them for something you don't understand already, the output is sufficiently plausible that you can't tell you're being misled. this makes the tool only useful for things you already know! I mean, just in this thread there's an anecdote from a guy who used i…

The great thing is the models are sufficiently different enough, that when multiple come to the same conclusion, there is a good chance that conclusion is bound by real data. And I think this is the advice that should always be doled out when using them for anything mission critical, legal, etc.

All the models are pre-trained on the same one Internet.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#104

Post by siva7 »

layer8 wrote: post #97
aerhardt wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. The article opens with: > OpenAI is changing its policies so that its AI chatbot, ChatGPT, won’t dole out tailored medical or legal advice to users. This already seems to contradict what you're saying. But then: > The AI research company updated its usage policies on Oct. 29 to clarify that users of ChatGPT can’t use the service for “tailored advice that requires a license, such as legal or medical advi…

https://xcancel.com/thekaransinghal/status/19854160578054965... This is from Karan Singhal, Health AI team lead at OpenAI. Quote: “Despite speculation, this is not a new change to our terms. Model behavior remains unchanged. ChatGPT has never been a substitute for professional advice, but it will continue to be a great resource to help people understand legal and health information.”

I doubt his claims as i use chatgpt everyday heavily for medical advice (my profession) and it's responding differently now than before.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#105

Post by 1718627440 »

JCM9 wrote: post #78
codedokode wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, for example, requiring a doctor to have education and qualifications, is "untenable"? It would be better if anyone could practice medicine? And LLM is below "anyone" level.

The medical profession has generally been more open to AI. The long predicted demise of Radiology because of ML never happened. Lots of opportunity to incorporate AI into medical records to assist. The legal profession is far more at threat with AI. AI isn’t going to replace physical interactions with patients, but it might replace your need for a human to review a contract.

ML on curated and diagnosed by a professional radiology reports is clearly a different beast than random language models, that might have random talking about their health issues in it's training data.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#106

Post by ankit219 »

_puk wrote: post #96
4cidBurn wrote: post #86

N/A

Edit: Parent has edited out the comment ranting about "the normal people using chatGPT as a modern WebMD". This is not shutting anything down other than businesses using ChatGPT to give medical advice [0]. Users can still ask questions, get answers, but the terms have been made clearer around reuse of that response (you cannot claim that it is medical advice). I imagine that a startup that specialises in "medical adv…

The thing is that if you are giving professional advice in US - legal, financial, medical - the other party can sue you for wrong or misleading advice. In that scenario, this leaves Openai exposed to a lawsuit, and this change seemingly eliminates that.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#107

Post by terminalshort »

ctoth wrote: post #79
spullara wrote: post #74

This title is inaccurate. What they are disallowing are users using ChatGPT to offer legal and medical advice to other people. First parties can still use ChatGPT for medical and legal advice for themselves.

I keep seeing this problem more and more with humans. What should we call it? Maybe Hallucinations? Where there is an accurate true thing and then it just gets altered by these guys who call themselves journalists and reporters and the like until it is just ... completely unrecognizable? I'm pretty sure it's a fundamental issue with the architecture.

Also these guys who call themselves doctors. I have narcolepsy and the first 10 or so doctors I went to hallucinated the wrong diagnosis.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#110

Post by terminalshort »

cpfohl wrote: post #3

Tricky…my son had a really rare congenital issue that no one could solve for a long time. After it was diagnosed I walked an older version of chat gpt through our experience and it suggested my son’s issue as a possibility along with the correct diagnostic tool in just one back and forth. I’m not saying we should be getting AI advice without a professional, but I’m my case it could have saved my kid a LOT of physical…

Why are you saying we shouldn't get AI advice without a "professional", then? Why is everybody here saying "in my experience it's just as good or better, but we need rules to make people use the worse option"? I have narcolepsy and it took a dozen doctors before they got it right. AI nails the diagnosis. Everybody should be using it.
Post reply on HN