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

141–150 of 748 posts

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

#141

Post by rvnx »

jancsika wrote: post #136
sxg wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In certain circumstances, the answer is yes. If an airplane's pilots are incapacitated, do you simply give up and crash the plane because there are no other pilots on board? Or would you rather have someone on the ground try to coach a passenger into at least attempting to land the plane?

You can choose a) a calm, level-headed passenger who knows they aren't a pilot, or b) a calm, level-headed passenger who almost has their pilots license but has a medical condition that prevents them from admitting when they lack certain knowledge. Who do you choose to be coached by an expert on the ground?

No thank you, I will ask Claude and then ask ChatGPT to challenge me, and do a couple of rounds like that.

The first: Has no clue about anything and therefore no useful knowledge and cannot challenge me

The second one: Is proven to willfully give wrong information and will make me do mistakes for sure.

The LLMs will do their best, even if imperfect, since they summarizes what appeared in books.

I prefer to be grounded on what Airbus / Boeing manuals, or on what pilots training book said, than two far more unreliable sources.

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

#142

Post by hectdev »

torben-friis wrote: post #106
jstummbillig wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's what I would like to call job security. When you know how to read what is wrong, you can easily catch the mistakes and correct it. AI gets you there faster by doing a lot of things right and you correct the mistakes.

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

#143

Post by darkwater »

nostrebored wrote: post #97
linsomniac wrote: post #91

~2 years ago I used ChatGPT "deep research" to investigate a chronic sinus infection I'd been fighting for ~3 years. After seeing 3 GPs and 3 visits with an ENT, I fed all the observations I had into the AI. In particular, I couldn't get the ENT to explain why he visually saw, via a scope, evidence of allergic reaction in my sinuses, but then later concluded, after an allergy test, that it couldn't be treated via all…

Daily allergy tablets are associated with huge increases in early onset Alzheimer’s. Glad you found something that works, but might be good to get some of the allergen injections :)

Wait, what?? Now I'm getting in panic mode because I do take regularly anti-hystaminic tablets/pills (the newer ones, based on ebastine because they don't make me feel sleepy)

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

#144

Post by frereubu »

sxg wrote: post #58
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…

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…

Slightly OT Nitpick: in regard to experts and Wikipedia, when doing a neuroscience-adjacent MSc, experts in the field actually directed me to Wikipedia as an excellent source for high-level neuroanatomy, including recent research, so I'm not sure your blanket description about experts and Wikipedia is correct.

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

#145

Post by meindnoch »

nostrebored wrote: post #97
linsomniac wrote: post #91

~2 years ago I used ChatGPT "deep research" to investigate a chronic sinus infection I'd been fighting for ~3 years. After seeing 3 GPs and 3 visits with an ENT, I fed all the observations I had into the AI. In particular, I couldn't get the ENT to explain why he visually saw, via a scope, evidence of allergic reaction in my sinuses, but then later concluded, after an allergy test, that it couldn't be treated via all…

Daily allergy tablets are associated with huge increases in early onset Alzheimer’s. Glad you found something that works, but might be good to get some of the allergen injections :)

Misinformation.

Only first-generation antihistamines with anticholinergic effects are associated with cognitive decline in elderly patients.

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

#146

Post by gib444 »

ricardobayes wrote: post #7

That might be doctors new nightmare: people who second guess everything with AI. Previously it was "google your symptoms".

It's so much worse than some Google results: people see LLMs as a trusted friend who never talks back and never questions you, who is excellent at convincingly communicating their bs, reeling you in with "tell me more so I can really lock this down", continuing to fool you

A con artist, a fraud

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

#147

Post by [deleted] »

bilsbie wrote: post #90
ricardobayes wrote: post #7

That might be doctors new nightmare: people who second guess everything with AI. Previously it was "google your symptoms".

It’s funny every profession deals with customers making their own guesses at diagnosis. I told my mechanic the film flam is broken but he said it was the rim ram. He fixed it and we all went in with our lives. But doctors insist on this God like status so it’s a “nightmare” when patients try to help themselves.

[deleted]

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

#148

Post by bitlad »

qnleigh wrote: post #137
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…

Totally agree. I'm a scientist, and like most scientists I have some specialized skills that most of my colleages don't. AI has empowered them to learn and build things that they might have otherwise needed me for. But there have been quite a few cases where it led them very far down a wrong path. This has started happening way more often in the last few months.* We've known since the beginning that AIs confidently s…

>very far down the wrong path.

Absolutely agree. Have seen this first hand

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

#149

Post by grayhatter »

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 itself alarming to me, but 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.

Welcome to the club? This new awareness you've found over the true quality of LLM based GenAI output has been what "all the haters" have been mad about for-ever. That the output of LLMs are clearly defective, and merely have found a cute trick towards making humans think they're less defective than they are actually measured to be.

And the corresponding anger and frustration to push the risks of genai output out onto others, while also aggressively pushing it as a feature you should be using already. You're behind don't you know, and whatever other lie I have to tell to trick you into enough FOMO to pay me 200USD/mo so I can sell FOSS back to you.

An LLM can only output the mean next likely token, and then add a bunch of extra noise on top of that so it feels interesting and not repetitive. None of this is new, the problem is, 50% of humans are below the mean, but have no idea. So when an LLM tells them some lie: well, it sounds so helpful! It's impossible for someone who sounds this helpful to lie to me, liars never sound confident! It must be PERFECT! I'm gonna tell everyone how perfect it is. so the bottom 0-33% think LLMs are fantastic tools that make nearly 0 mistakes in comparison to the bottom 33%. 33-66%-ish aren't sure, some times it's great, but it will make that random mistake sometimes, but I can catch most (or all of them depending on ego). and the 66%+ are angry about how many people are getting tricked by something so obviously low quality, or are lucky enough to not have to care.

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

#150

Post by hectdev »

My only issue with this was the restriction of "Do not look at any data outside of our working folder" is preventing the tool from doing what it does best. I would have given it access to PubMed to pull the latest research on the subject and validate.

I wouldn't consider Claude itself to be the tool that does a job like this, but the tool that pulls in the best data and gives a supported suggestion. And then go through a number of iterations on where it failed to hone in its assessment.

Post reply on HN