41–50 of 748 posts
But are you all forgetting that they literally injected a homeopathic drug on the author?
Between that and Claude sometimes hallucinating, it’s probably worth encouraging patients to take second opinion always.
That might be doctors new nightmare: people who second guess everything with AI. Previously it was "google your symptoms".
Nightmare because they're always right and the A.I second guessing is always wrong, or because they just don't like to be second guessed?
The same issues that were present with search-engine self diagnosis are still present with LLMs. If you provide Google with an incomplete list of symptoms and can’t interpret the information you find correctly, you will likely get an incorrect diagnosis. The same is true for LLM output.
I feel like I'm going nuts. There are other commenters saying this is a good practice they've also done for other injuries. You are saying you are an actual radiologist and immediately clock the problems with its advice. I have seen this pattern over and over again. Anytime someone is an actual expert at anything, AI output appears insufficient or incomplete or outright misleading. It is only when you do not know wha…
That might be doctors new nightmare: people who second guess everything with AI. Previously it was "google your symptoms".
We need studies that quantify error rates from each source type, then we need to account for the fact that the artificial type will keep improving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nightmare because they're always right and the A.I second guessing is always wrong, or because they just don't like to be second guessed?
Nightmare because the AI is just generating a random text that fits the question.
Studies have found that newer reasoning AIs are about as good at diagnosing illness from a written description of symptoms as doctors are.
Granted, it cannot actually examine a patient, so we're not replacing doctors anytime soon. But your view is obsolete.
If the author would actually go for a second opinion (maybe bring along the AI to let it explain it's findings), then the article could read as "AI did MRI analysis and proved my doctor wrong" (or: "AI did MRI analysis and failed").
I feel like I'm going nuts. There are other commenters saying this is a good practice they've also done for other injuries. You are saying you are an actual radiologist and immediately clock the problems with its advice. I have seen this pattern over and over again. Anytime someone is an actual expert at anything, AI output appears insufficient or incomplete or outright misleading. It is only when you do not know wha…
AI isn't even the first instance of this phenomenon, news articles are like this as well.
I feel like I'm going nuts. There are other commenters saying this is a good practice they've also done for other injuries. You are saying you are an actual radiologist and immediately clock the problems with its advice. I have seen this pattern over and over again. Anytime someone is an actual expert at anything, AI output appears insufficient or incomplete or outright misleading. It is only when you do not know wha…
> no one else seems to find this to be quite damning for the AI services being offered, preferring instanced to be wowed by the convenience and speed at which they can be delivered unreviewed and unproven information "Be wowed by the convenience and speed", or merely "take advantage of the mere availability"? What most people find to be damning about expert advice is that they simply can't get it anywhere, at any cos…