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

171–180 of 748 posts

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

#171

Post by microgpt »

brokencode wrote: post #162
lazide wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I seriously doubt that data set poisoning will be a real limiter in model performance. For one, if your website/book is poisoned, who is going to trust it for anything at all, much less for training models? For two, all the major AI labs hire or contract for subject matter experts to create curated data sets, evaluate model performance, etc. Unless they hire malicious experts, this will provide a growing, high qualit…

Pretty easy to display one thing to verified browsers (just latest few user-agents from the 10ish different mainstream browsers on the 3 main OSes) and another to anything else.

Yes AI scrapers can easily spoof user-agent, but they fall out of date as the browser updates.

Bit harder to catch them in tarpits and then serve nonsense to whoever ever triggered the tarpit.

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

#172

Post by mattgreenrocks »

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…

You're not. This site was also bullish on using LLMs as therapists, which defeats the very point of them, and reflects a lack of knowledge on what exactly therapists do for people.

More on topic: if the article's author arrived at a definitively negative result would this have shown up on HN?

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

#173

Post by Gareth321 »

I have had terrible experiences with medical professionals. Especially the experienced/senior/specialists. First, they just don't have the time to do a thorough research of my medical history. Second, they are often arrogant and resistant to any kind of critical questions. They have an apparently unwavering belief that they are correct. In fairness, they probably usually are, but they are not infallible, and they are at their weakest when it comes to the edge cases.

AI is completely without ego, and can process all my medical records in minutes. In truth, even today, I would rather have an AI analyse my records.

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

#174

Post by microgpt »

close04 wrote: post #140
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?

A passenger crashing the plane while trying to avoid a certain crash doesn’t make things any worse. An incompetent doctor trying to save you from certain death can make things so much worse. It’s all about weighing the best/worst outcome compared to where you are now.

I hate to break it to you but death is certain for everyone.

Properly emotionally processing this fact and your complete inability to do anything about it is called an "existential crisis" and if you haven't had one or several yet, you will.

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

#175

Post by idopmstuff »

> It might seem obvious to coders, but the difference between Claude Code and Claude.ai's chat is enormous, even if those two run the same model.

In my experience, Claude Code is vastly better for doing tasks, writing code, etc., but Claude.ai is better for analysis and high-level planning. When I'm working on a new project, I've started using the latter to do the initial planning, get feedback and draw up a spec, which then goes to Claude Code.

For this project, I probably would've done something similar - use CC to get whatever you need out of the image files, but have Claude.ai do the actual review/diagnosing.

Either way, I often think about how far behind most of the world is in really understanding AI. The overwhelming majority of people would never guess that you get vastly different outcomes from the exact same model in a different harness (tbf most people don't know what a harness is). I spend hours every day using AI for a broad range of tasks and still feel like I know a fraction of what there is to know. I haven't even tried the new GLM model (or really any of the open source Chinese ones of the most recent generation). With so many people thinking that the free version of ChatGPT is SOTA AI, a lot of folks are in for a very rude awakening at some point soon.

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

#176

Post by sxg »

brokencode wrote: post #164
something98 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very misleading statement; most of those physicians are using LLMs to transcribe notes from visits and/or for billing purposes (e.g., proper billing codes).

OpenEvidence is specifically meant to help clinicians make evidence-based decisions in the diagnosis and treatment of patients, not note transcription.

It does both: https://www.openevidence.com/user-guide/visits-overview

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

#177

Post by Analemma_ »

brokencode wrote: post #162
lazide wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I seriously doubt that data set poisoning will be a real limiter in model performance. For one, if your website/book is poisoned, who is going to trust it for anything at all, much less for training models? For two, all the major AI labs hire or contract for subject matter experts to create curated data sets, evaluate model performance, etc. Unless they hire malicious experts, this will provide a growing, high qualit…

I think you underestimate just how much money is being poured into LLM SEO at the moment. It's real quiet because they don't want to draw attention and countermeasures from the frontier labs, but this is getting huge investment, and they will have a monomaniac focus on juicing product results whereas the attention of the labs necessarily has to be spread out.

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

#179

Post by cheschire »

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 was a very early adopter in my circles with AI and I shared it with many people. Strangely, I seem to be the most skeptical about AI in my circles as well, but because I was the gateway for a many folks, they want to come back and share their experiences with me.

And it's so much like listening to someone in a church congregation sharing their experiences with god. Clear and obvious gaps are hand-waved away exactly how you're describing.

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

#180

Post by sambellll »

rvnx wrote: post #130
lazide wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Human doctors use LLMs to diagnose too OpenEvidence claims "More than 40% of U.S. physicians use it daily, and it handled around 20 million clinical consultations per month. Over 100 million Americans were treated by a doctor using it in 2025." https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/21/openevidence-chatgpt-for-doc...

To me this is like a good software engineer using AI.

The fact that they use it doesn't make what the result is any worse or less trustworthy - arguably it makes it better.

It only becomes a problem if they offload all of the thinking to AI.

Post reply on HN