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

I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

antoine.fi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 748 posts

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#101

Post by quacked »

The thing that annoys me about AI discourse is that AI is a mathematical technique of rapidly increasing efficacy, and yet everyone personifies it. It would help if every time someone said "AI" they supplemented "a mathematical method where extensions onto a very large corpus of information are statistically simulated".

It's not true that "AI makes mistakes" or "ChatGPT is sycophantic". It's just that sometimes the simulated extensions to the training material are accurate, and sometimes they're not.

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#102

Post by tomaskafka »

rafterydj wrote: post #15

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…

Yes. The PM’s “with AI I know enough to be dangerous, haha” means “I’m actually dangerous and I don’t realize”

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#103

Post by meindnoch »

rafterydj wrote: post #15

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…

We're past the point of Gell-Mann amnesia. This is full blown Gell-Mann psychosis.

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#105

Post by rmbyrro »

Aeolun wrote: post #2

I would not use Claude to get a second opinion on anything that’s an image.

I agree with you for some kinds of images, but not all.

LLMs are the best PDF-to-markdown converters, in my experience. I have a CLI that converts PDF to PNG, then run a background agent to "read" each PNG and write it down as markdown; it works flawlessly even for complex math formulas, it can "translate" complex charts, graphs, and tables into words.

It's slow and arguably expensive compared to traditional OCR, but very effective and precise.

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#106

Post by torben-friis »

jstummbillig wrote: post #87
rafterydj wrote: post #15

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, not anytime someone is an actual expert at anything, AI output appears insufficient. That is why experts in various fields use AI. Then to say "Aha, but all of that is AI psychosis" makes obviously no sense: Why would we trust experts when they offer critique but not when they say "this is helpful"? Overall: People are not insane. AI makes mistakes and, often, fails completely. AI also helps them do things better…

How many times have you seen an expert go "yeah these results are good consistently enough for a non expert to trust them without expert assistance"?

There is a huge difference between having a chance of a good result, which can be useful for experts able to filter out the bullshit, and consistent success. I would generate code as a helper, I would never allow a guy from marketing to merge unreviewed AI code.

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#107

Post by lazide »

appplication wrote: post #55
rafterydj wrote: post #15

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…

This is the root of AI psychosis. There’s a lot of unpack here, and I won’t go too deep because you can’t really have a discussion with affected folks because their fundamental basis is not evidence, it’s belief. It is weirdly religious in a way, because if you were to present contrary evidence (e.g. experts in a field weighing in about how plausible sounding responses are bunk), you would only be told you don’t beli…

I don’t think they will improve, there is too much incentive to poison the datasets going forward.

A lot of the models up to this point have been benefitted - like Google did - from essentially ‘pre SEO’ internet.

Now the same tools are being used to generate nigh infinite good sounding bullshit, which poisons the dataset in all sorts of hard to detect ways.

To add insult to injury, the human experts are also not as. Naive, and have many incentives to poison their own input in subtle ways too.

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#108

Post by bflesch »

tiahura wrote: post #16
sxg wrote: post #6

I'm a radiologist but can't really weigh in without seeing the full 3D MRI dataset. Regarding this point: > They performed shockwave therapy on my shoulder even though a recent clinical practice guideline says clinicians should not use or recommend shockwave therapy for rotator-cuff tendinopathy without calcification; I was told during ultrasound that there was no calcification. Ultrasound isn't a great way to assess…

Why isn’t diagnostic ultrasound used in orthopedics? They inspect fetus hearts and other organs everyday, why not shoulders? Seems much cheaper and faster.

It's a manual, non-standardized process without a standardized output. Image quality depends both on user skills (how deeply they press the sensor on the skin) and the machine they have. Unlike CT/MRI the examination results cannot be easily shared and compared between patients for studies.

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#109

Post by baconmania »

bilsbie wrote: post #82
EA-3167 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People, especially in medical crises, are desperate for answers that they often can't get because their clinicians don't know. The illusion of an all-knowing guru who sounds like their doctor and tells them ANYTHING is extremely alluring. If you're waiting to hear back from a doctor about test results (which these days probably showed up on your online account the moment they were completed) can be agonizing. Ok for…

> but how about Whatever scenario you come up with my answer is the same. As an adult I’d like to be able to choose what tools I use to learn about my condition regardless of how well it works or even if it’s likely to mislead me. There’s risk in every aspect of life and we can’t baby proof everything.

>choose what tools I use to learn about my condition regardless of how well it works or even if it’s likely to mislead me.

Even if it "works" so poorly that you're not actually learning about your condition?

Re: I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI

#110

Post by sxg »

ohyes wrote: post #73
sxg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see your argument, but it's not exactly news that an expert found a flaw in a popular tool. You could say the same about Wikipedia--experts have tons of issues with it, but Wikipedia still provides value to non-experts. The most likely alternative to Wikipedia for non-experts is simply not trying to learn anything new. Similarly with LLMs, you can't just write them off entirely because they sometimes provide mislea…

The free alternative to Wikipedia is the library, not “don’t learn anything new ever”. I find Claude is surprisingly similar to a confident but incorrect coworker, with the benefit that Claude will reevaluate when I correct it.

I used the phrase "most likely alternative" intentionally. The library is where people should go to get answers in a world without Wikipedia, but the vast majority of people won't. So in practice, most non-experts either learn from Wikipedia or don't try to learn anything at all.
Post reply on HN