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

ChatGPT Health

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 677 posts

Re: ChatGPT Health

#121

Post by azan_ »

cyberpunk wrote: post #107
idiotsecant wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your point 'I have no major health conditions, so nobody could be hurt by releasing health data'? If so, I don't think I need to point out the gap in this logic.

Actually you maybe do. I am extremely privacy conscious; so i’m on your side on this one but health data is a bit different from handing over all your email and purchase information to google — in that scenario the danger is that the political or religious or whatever attributes i may have could be exposed to a future regime who considers what is acceptable today to no longer be so, uses them to profile and … whateve…

Depends on the data - if you had genetic data they might run PGS and infer that even though you are healthy now, your genes might predispose you to something bad and deny insurance based on that. If you truly do not see dangers of health data access remember that they could genotype you even when you came just for ordinary bloodwork.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#122

Post by kylehotchkiss »

fnoef wrote: post #65

I’m kind of torn on this. From one side, I can’t seem to trust doctors any more. I recently had a tooth removed (by the advice of two different doctors), in a claim that it will resolve my pain, which it did not, and now 3 different doctors don’t know what’s causing my pain. Most doctor advice boil down to drink some water and take a painkiller, while glancing for 15 seconds at my medical history before they dedicate…

... at the same time ... OpenAI is a business with limited financial success relative to expenses and insurance companies are thirsty for improved models. Currently the entire might of the US Government is on Central American misadventures so you think they're gonna stop them?

Re: ChatGPT Health

#123

Post by com2kid »

schwarzrules wrote: post #116

I understand all the chatter about LLMs hallucinating, or making assumptions, or not being able to understand or provide the more human/emotional element of health care. But the question I ask myself is: is this better than the alternative? if I wasn't asking ChatGPT, where would I go to get help? The answers I can anticipate are: questionably trustworthy web content; an overconfident friend who may have read questio…

Chatgpt helped me solve a side effect I had with a medication just by suggesting a changing to dose timing. Solid improvement to my QoL just from one small change. My doctor completely agreed with the suggestion.

When I got worried about an exercise suggestion from an app I'm using (weight being used for prone dumbbell leg curls) Chatgpt confirmed there is a suggested upper limit on weight for that exercise and that I should switch it out. I appreciate not injuring myself. (Gemini gave a horrible response, heh...)

Chatgpt is dangerous because it is still too agreeable and when you do go outside what it knows the answers get wrong fast, but when it is useful it is very useful.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#124

Post by georgebcrawford »

cyberpunk wrote: post #107
idiotsecant wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your point 'I have no major health conditions, so nobody could be hurt by releasing health data'? If so, I don't think I need to point out the gap in this logic.

Actually you maybe do. I am extremely privacy conscious; so i’m on your side on this one but health data is a bit different from handing over all your email and purchase information to google — in that scenario the danger is that the political or religious or whatever attributes i may have could be exposed to a future regime who considers what is acceptable today to no longer be so, uses them to profile and … whateve…

Not danger as in being kidnapped by government agents, danger in terms of being denied a job or insurance or anything else.

Your comment is extraordinarily naive.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#125

Post by fleeting900 »

cyberpunk wrote: post #107
idiotsecant wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your point 'I have no major health conditions, so nobody could be hurt by releasing health data'? If so, I don't think I need to point out the gap in this logic.

Actually you maybe do. I am extremely privacy conscious; so i’m on your side on this one but health data is a bit different from handing over all your email and purchase information to google — in that scenario the danger is that the political or religious or whatever attributes i may have could be exposed to a future regime who considers what is acceptable today to no longer be so, uses them to profile and … whateve…

Something that is not yet known to be an indicator that you’re at risk of a condition.

Perhaps you were given some medication that is later proven harmful. Maybe there’s a sign in your blood test results that in future will strongly correlate with a condition that emerges in your 50s. Maybe a study will show that having no appendix correlates with later issues.

How confident are you that the data will never be used against you by future insurance, work screening, dating apps, immigration processes, etc

Re: ChatGPT Health

#126

Post by qgin »

I help take care of my 80-ish year old mother. ChatGPT figured out in 5 minutes the reason behind a pretty serious chronic problem that her very good doctors hadn't been able to figure out in 3 years. Her doctors came around to the possibility, tested out the hypothesis, and it was 100% right. She's doing great now (at least with that one thing).

That's not to say that it's better than doctors or even that it's a good way to address every condition. But there are definitely situations where these models can take in more information than any one doctor has the time to absorb in a 12-minute appointment and consider possibilities across silos and specialties in a way that is difficult to find otherwise.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#128

Post by throwaway314155 »

sys32768 wrote: post #103

Most doctors are just people who had a strong ability to pass tests and finish medical school. Most of the ones I've worked with aren't passionate about their specialty or their patients, and their neglect and mistakes show it.

> Most doctors are just people who had a strong ability to pass tests and finish medical school.

This is a tautology. “Most doctors are just (doing lots of work there) people who had the ability to meet the prerequisites for…becoming a doctor.”

Are doctors fallible? Of course. Is there room for improvement with regard to LLM’s? Hopefully. Does that mean there’s reason to spread general distrust in doctors? Fuck no. Until now they were the only chance you had at getting health care.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#130

Post by throwaway132448 »

schwarzrules wrote: post #116

I understand all the chatter about LLMs hallucinating, or making assumptions, or not being able to understand or provide the more human/emotional element of health care. But the question I ask myself is: is this better than the alternative? if I wasn't asking ChatGPT, where would I go to get help? The answers I can anticipate are: questionably trustworthy web content; an overconfident friend who may have read questio…

Reach further in to your local community? You need to look outside the screens. Your life will be better for it.
Post reply on HN