[deleted]
ChatGPT Health
131–140 of 677 posts
Re: ChatGPT Health
#132Isn't it illegal to provide health advice without a license?
The endless parade of health influencers says no.
Re: ChatGPT Health
#133It’s so foreign to me that anyone would want this in their life.
Re: ChatGPT Health
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
If an insight led you or a family member to being misdiagnosed and crippled would you just say it’s their or your own fault? If it were a doctor would you have the same opinion?
I understand enough about these systems to know they’re not perfect but I agree some people might be misled. But I don’t know if I should be denied access because of those people.
I just had a deja vu, I'm sure I read this some months ago
Did you previously write this exact comment before?
Re: ChatGPT Health
#135"we built foundational protections (...) including (...) training our models not to retain personal information from user chats" Can someone please ELI5 - why is this a training issue, rather than basic design? How does one "train" for this?
This is just marketing nonsense. You don't have to train models to not retain personal information. They simply have no memory. In order to have a chat with an LLM, every time the whole conversation history gets reprocessed - it is not just the last answer / question gets send to the LLM but all preceding back and forth. But what they do is exfiltrate facts and emotions from your chats to create a profile of you and…
I think they mean that they trained the tool-calling capabilities to skip personal information in tool call arguments (for RAG), or something like that. You need to intentionally train it to skip certain data.
>every time the whole conversation history gets reprocessed
Unless they're talking about the memory feature, which is some kind of RAG that remembers information between conversations.
Re: ChatGPT Health
#136Something to note here is that just yesterday (January 6 2026) the FDA announced changes around regulation of wearable & AI enabled devices: https://www.statnews.com/2026/01/06/fda-pulls-back-oversight... (" FDA announces sweeping changes to oversight of wearables, AI-enabled devices The changes could allow unregulated generative artificial intelligence tools into clinical workflows")
I think it's only a matter of time before OpenAI starts doing hardware (phones, watches, vr)
Re: ChatGPT Health
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs themselves are the coffin for most apps, because by its very nature, AI subsumes products . UX is not going to be a prime motivator, because the product itself is the very thing that stands between user and the thing they want. UX-wise, for most software, it's better for users to have all these products to be reduced to tool calls for AI agents, accessible via a single interface. The very concept of product itse…
Depends on the product itself. For example I use an LLM for tracking calorie data by telling it or providing a picture of the food I had, and it does a web search to find those details. The problem is it doesn't actually remember past meals, so I wrapped this API call in a simple app that just tracks the calorie numbers like a traditional app. Just having an LLM is not the right UX for the vast majority of apps.
Right. But what if you dropped the human-facing UI, and instead exposed the backend (i.e. a database + CRUD API + heavy domain flavoring) to LLM as a tool? Suddenly you not only get a more reliable recognition (you're more likely to eat something that you've eaten before than completely new), but also the LLM can use this data to inform answers to other topics (e.g. diet recommendations, restaurant recommendations), or do arbitrary analytics on-demand, leveraging other tools at its disposal (e.g. Python, JS, SQL, Excel are the most obvious ones), etc. Suddenly the LLM would be more useful at maintaining shopping lists and cross-referencing with deals in local grocery stores - which actually subsumes several classes of apps people use. And so on.
> Just having an LLM is not the right UX for the vast majority of apps.
I argue it is, as most things people do in software doesn't need to be hands-on. Intuition pump: if you can imagine asking someone else - a spouse, a friend, an assistant - to use some app to do something for you, instead of using the app yourself, then turning that app into a set of tools for LLM would almost certainly improve UX.
But I agree it's not fully universal. If e.g. you want to browse the history of your meals, then having to ask an LLM for it is inferior to tapping a button and seeing some charts. My perspective is that tool for LLM > app when you have some specific goal you can express in words, and thus could delegate; conversely, directly operating an app is better when your goal is unclear or hard to put in words, and you just need to "interact with the medium" to achieve it.
Re: ChatGPT Health
#138Brave new world we live in...
Re: ChatGPT Health
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if I wasn't asking ChatGPT, where would I go to get help? Is this serious question? Can't you call/visit doctor?
I'm Australian, but from what I understand from my friends in America, no. They only go when it's urgent/very worrying.
I'm not fond of the fact that it's owned by Amazon but I use OneMedical and I can get a call to a doctor ~immediately, or to my regular doctor within a day or so.
Re: ChatGPT Health
#140I 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…
> if I wasn't asking ChatGPT, where would I go to get help? Is this serious question? Can't you call/visit doctor?
A lot of doctors also give bad and incorrect advice. I actually find that to be the norm