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

121–130 of 439 posts

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

#121

Post by Johnny555 »

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.

While they aren't stopping users from getting medical advice, the new terms (which they say are pretty much the same as the old terms), seem to prohibit users from seeking medical advice even for themselves if that advice would otherwise come from a licensed health professional:

https://openai.com/en-GB/policies/usage-policies/

  Your use of OpenAI services must follow these Usage Policies:

    Protect people. Everyone has a right to safety and security. So you cannot use our services for:

      provision of tailored advice that requires a license, such as legal or medical advice, without appropriate involvement by a licensed professional

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

#122

Post by simonw »

gcr wrote: post #93
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…

I think this is wrong. Others in this thread are noticing a change in ChatGPT's behavior for first-party medical advice.

But OpenAI's head of Health AI says that ChatGPT's behavior has not changed: https://xcancel.com/thekaransinghal/status/19854160578054965... and https://x.com/thekaransinghal/status/1985416057805496524

I trust what he says over general vibes.

(If you think he's lying, what's your theory on WHY he would lie about a change like this?)

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

#123

Post by el_benhameen »

rafaelmn wrote: post #38
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…

>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. Something I've noticed is that it's much easier to lead the LLM to the answer when you know where you want to go (even when the answer is factually wrong !), it doesn't have to be obvious leading but just framing the qu…

In January my daughter had a pretty scary stomach issue that had us in the ER twice in 24 hours and that ended in surgery (just fine now).

The first ER doc thought it was just a stomach ache, the second thought a stomach ache or maybe appendicitis. Did some ultrasounds, meds, etc. Got sent home with a pat on the head, came back a few hours later, still no answers.

I gave her medical history and all of the data from the ER visits to whatever the current version of ChatGPT was at the time to make sure I wasn’t failing to ask any important questions. I’m not an AI True Believer (tm), but it was clear that the doctors were missing something and I had hit the limit of my Googling abilities.

ChatGPT suggested, among an few other diagnoses, a rare intestinal birth defect that affects about 2% of the population; 2% of affected people become symptomatic during their lifetimes. I kind of filed it away and looked more into the other stuff.

They decided it might be appendicitis and went to operate. When the surgeon called to tell me that it was in fact this very rare condition, she was pretty surprised when I said I’d heard of it.

So, not a one-shot, and not a novel discovery or anything, but an anecdote where I couldn’t have subconsciously guided it to the answer as I didn’t know the answer myself.

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

#124

Post by _puk »

ankit219 wrote: post #106
_puk wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, that clearly makes sense from OpenAI's perspective.

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

#126

Post by observationist »

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.

These writers are no different than bloggers or shitposters on bluesky or here on hackernews. "Journalism" as a rigorous, principled approach to writing, research, investigation, and ethical publishing is exceedingly rare. These people are shitposting for clicks in pursuit of a paycheck. Organizationally, they're intensely against AI because AI effectively replaces the entire talking heads class - AI is already superhuman at the shitposting level takes these people churn out. There are still a few journalistic insitutions out there, but most people are no better than a mad libs exercise with regards to the content they produce, and they're in direct competition with ChatGPT and Grok and the rest. I'd rather argue with a bot and do searches and research and investigation than read a neatly packaged trite little article about nearly any subject, and I guarantee, hallucinations or no, I'm going to come to a better understanding and closer approximation of reality than any content a so called "news" outlet is putting together.

It's trivial to get a thorough spectrum of reliable sources using AI w/ web search tooling, and over the course of a principled conversation, you can find out exactly what you want to know.

It's really not bashing, this article isn't too bad, but the bulk of this site's coverage of AI topics skews negative - as do the many, many platforms and outlets owned by Bell Media, with a negative skew on AI in general, and positive reinforcement of regulatory capture related topics. Which only makes sense - they're making money, and want to continue making money, and AI threatens that - they can no longer claim they provide value if they're not providing direct, relevant, novel content, and not zergnet clickbait journo-slop.

Just like Carlin said, there doesn't have to be a conspiracy with a bunch of villains in a smoky room plotting evil, there's just a bunch of people in a club who know what's good for them, and legacy media outlets are all therefore universally incentivized to make AI look as bad and flawed and useless as possible, right up until they get what they consider to be their "fair share", as middlemen.

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

#128

Post by ares623 »

terminalshort wrote: post #110
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.

How do you hold the AI accountable when it makes a mistake? Can you take away its license "individually"?

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

#129

Post by asadotzler »

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.

I assure you the medical profession is not generally open to non-medical professionals using AI for medical purposes.

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

#130

Post by asadotzler »

uslic001 wrote: post #36

As a doctor I hope it still allows me to get up to speed on latest treatments for rare diseases that I see once every 10 years. It saves me a lot of time rather than having to dig through all the new information since I last encountered a rare disease.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN