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

I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

msn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 240 posts

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#11

Post by brandonb »

aeonfox wrote: post #4
freedomben wrote: post #2

> Despite having access to my weight, blood pressure and cholesterol, ChatGPT based much of its negative assessment on an Apple Watch measurement known as VO2 max, the maximum amount of oxygen your body can consume during exercise. Apple says it collects an “estimate” of VO2 max, but the real thing requires a treadmill and a mask. Apple says its cardio fitness measures have been validated, but independent researchers…

> I think the blame more rests on Apple for falsely representing the quality of their product There was plenty of other concerning stuff in that article. And from a quick read it wasn't suggested or implied the VO2 max issue was the deciding factor for the original F score the author received. The article did suggest many times over the ChatGPT is really not equipped for the task of health diagnosis. > There was anot…

The lack of self-consistency does seem like a sign of a deeper issue with reliability. In most fields of machine learning robustness to noise is something you need to "bake in" (often through data augmentation using knowledge of the domain) rather than get for free in training.

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#12

Post by miltonlost »

freedomben wrote: post #2

> Despite having access to my weight, blood pressure and cholesterol, ChatGPT based much of its negative assessment on an Apple Watch measurement known as VO2 max, the maximum amount of oxygen your body can consume during exercise. Apple says it collects an “estimate” of VO2 max, but the real thing requires a treadmill and a mask. Apple says its cardio fitness measures have been validated, but independent researchers…

> What would you expect the behavior of the AI to be? Should it always assume bad data or potentially bad data? If so, that seems like it would defeat the point of having data at all as you could never draw any conclusions from it.

Well, I would expect the AI to provide the same response as a real doctor did from the same information. Which the article went over the doctors were able to.

I also would expect the AI to provide the same answer every time to the same data unlike what it did (from F to B over multiple attempts in the article)

OpenAI is entirely to blame here when they are putting out faulty products, (hallucinations even on accurate data are a fault of them).

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#13

Post by maxdo »

Typical Western coverage: “How dare they call me unhealthy.” In reality, the doctor said it needs further investigation and that some data isn’t great. They didn’t say “unhealthy”; they said “needs more investigation.” What’s wrong with that? Is the real issue just a bruised Western ego?

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#14

Post by dylan604 »

dfajgljsldkjag wrote: post #5

The author is a healthy person but the computer program still gave him a failing grade of F. It is irresponsible for these companies to release broken tools that can cause so much fear in real people. They are treating serious medical advice like it is just a video game or a toy. Real users should not be the ones testing these dangerous products.

What LLM should the LLM turn to ask if what the user is asking is safe for the first LLM to answer?

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#15

Post by nomel »

dfajgljsldkjag wrote: post #5

The author is a healthy person but the computer program still gave him a failing grade of F. It is irresponsible for these companies to release broken tools that can cause so much fear in real people. They are treating serious medical advice like it is just a video game or a toy. Real users should not be the ones testing these dangerous products.

> It is irresponsible for these companies

I would claim that ignoring the "ChatGPT is AI and can make mistakes. Check important info." text, right under the query they type in client, is clearly more irresponsible.

I think that a disclaimer like that is the most useful and reasonable approach for AI.

"Here's a tool, and it's sometimes wrong." means the public can have access to LLMs and AI. The alternative, that you seem to be suggesting (correct me if I'm wrong), means the public can't have access to an LLM until they are near perfect, which means the public can't ever have access to an LLM, or any AI.

What do you see as a reasonable approach to letting the public access these imperfect models? Training? Popups/agreement after every question "I understand this might be BS"? What's the threshold for quality of information where it's no longer considered "broken"? Is that threshold as good as or better than humans/news orgs/doctors/etc?

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#16

Post by wawayanda »

A year or so ago, I fed my wife's blood work results into chatgpt and it came back with a terrifying diagnosis. Even after a lot of back and forth it stuck to its guns. We went to a specialist who performed some additional tests and explained that the condition cannot be diagnosed with just the original blood work and said that she did not have the condition. The whole thing was a borderline traumatic ordeal that I'm still pretty pissed about.

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#17

Post by zdragnar »

nomel wrote: post #15
dfajgljsldkjag wrote: post #5

The author is a healthy person but the computer program still gave him a failing grade of F. It is irresponsible for these companies to release broken tools that can cause so much fear in real people. They are treating serious medical advice like it is just a video game or a toy. Real users should not be the ones testing these dangerous products.

> It is irresponsible for these companies I would claim that ignoring the "ChatGPT is AI and can make mistakes. Check important info." text, right under the query they type in client, is clearly more irresponsible. I think that a disclaimer like that is the most useful and reasonable approach for AI. "Here's a tool, and it's sometimes wrong." means the public can have access to LLMs and AI. The alternative, that you…

> Popups/agreement after every question "I understand this might be BS"?

Considering the number of people who take LLM responses as authoritative Truth, that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#18

Post by daveguy »

wawayanda wrote: post #16

A year or so ago, I fed my wife's blood work results into chatgpt and it came back with a terrifying diagnosis. Even after a lot of back and forth it stuck to its guns. We went to a specialist who performed some additional tests and explained that the condition cannot be diagnosed with just the original blood work and said that she did not have the condition. The whole thing was a borderline traumatic ordeal that I'm…

Please keep telling your story. This is the kind of shit that medical science has been dealing with for at least a century. When evaluating testing procedures false positives can have serious consequences. A test that's positive every time will catch every single true positive, but it's also worthless. These LLMs don't have a goddamn clue about it. There should be consequences for these garbage fires giving medical advice.

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#19

Post by anonzzzies »

Apple watch told me, based on vo2 max, that i'm almost dead, all the time. I went to the doctor, did a real test and it was complete nonsense. I had the watch replaced 3 times but same results, so I returned it and will not try again. Scaring people with stuff you cannot actually shut off (at least you couldn't before) is not great.

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#20

Post by chrisfosterelli »

Health metrics are absolutely tarnished by a lack of proper context. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that you can't reliably take a concept as broad as health and reduce it to a number. We see the same arguments over and over with body fat percentages, vo2 max estimates, BMI, lactate thresholds, resting heart rate, HRV, and more. These are all useful metrics, but it's important to consider them in the proper context that each of them deserve.

This article gave an LLM a bunch of health metrics and then asked it to reduce it to a single score, didn't tell us any of the actual metric values, and then compared that to a doctor's opinion. Why anyone would expect these to align is beyond my understanding.

The most obvious thing that jumps out to me is that I've noticed doctors generally, for better or worse, consider "health" much differently than the fitness community does. It's different toolsets and different goals. If this person's VO2 max estimate was under 30, that's objectively a poor VO2 max by most standards, and an LLM trained on the internet's entire repository of fitness discussion is likely going to give this person a bad score in terms of cardio fitness. But a doctor who sees a person come in who isn't complaining about anything in particular, moves around fine, doesn't have risk factors like age or family history, and has good metrics on a blood test is probably going to say they're in fine cardio health regardless of what their wearable says.

I'd go so far to say this is probably the case for most people. Your average person is in really poor fitness-shape but just fine health-shape.

Post reply on HN