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

181–190 of 748 posts

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

#181

Post by microgpt »

newsclues wrote: post #43
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…

LLM is not necessarily an expert system. Once there are expert systems for law, healthcare, accounting, governance… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system

Didn't they try that in the 80s and 90s but discover the real world is too variable for that to work?

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

#182

Post by rapatel0 »

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 shouldn’t expect frontier models to work on medical imaging. There is much more that goes into building a medical imaging product. First and foremost is data. Medical imaging datasets are not prevalent one the public internet at the scale necessary to have good performance on medical imaging tasks especially MRI. Also the labels are super noisy.

This is completely different than asking for general medical reasoning which is more derived from papers, public standards and textbooks.

Text exists at the right scale but images don’t.

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

#184

Post by ohyes »

sxg wrote: post #110
ohyes wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, if we’re going to go that broad. People are already leaning heavily towards learning nothing instead of using Wikipedia.

I guess to me it has to be comparable to be an alternative.

Like, I don’t consider doomscrolling x an alternative to reading Wikipedia but I might consider it an alternative to CNN, even though they’re all technically and very broadly activities that I could use to inform myself.

In that same way I don’t consider the multitude of ways I could use my free will necessarily alternatives to each other even though they technically are. It kinda sucks but going that broad feels to me like it breaks the concept of alternative and makes it kind of meaningless.

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

#185

Post by TomasBM »

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…

Why is it psychosis and not lower standards?

While I can understand being skeptical of non-experts' claims that such answers are enough, I don't understand why you call it "psychosis" and not simply naivety or lack of expertise.

At the same time, the new so-called "models" haven't been pure transformer-based LLMs, but entire systems with tools (with access to the Internet), data storage, and the options to trigger additional instances for different tasks.

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

#186

Post by ohyes »

bflesch wrote: post #98
ohyes wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Claude will do everything to retain you as a user, because that's one of their most important metrics.

Excellent point my colleague has the exact opposite incentive.

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

#187

Post by nicman23 »

dwa3592 wrote: post #168

Was it 2016 when Geoff hinton said that radiology was a dead career? Well, we now have the best model of our time (trillions of $$$ of investments) telling us something completely different(and wrong) from a human expert. I would really like someone calling out dario, sam, elon on these things and hear their explanations but alas, a man can only dream.

yeah that is why you would not use a random llm that is not trained in radiology lmfao

diffusion models are probably a better bet for identifying irregular structures

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

#188

Post by pwg »

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…

> Anytime someone is an actual expert at anything, AI output appears insufficient or incomplete or outright misleading.

The term for when the press "gets it wrong" is Gell-Mann Amnesia (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesia_effect).

In that case, when you have personal knowledge of the facts, or know the specific domain area, you can see where the reporter mixed things up.

AI is no different, it's just a bunch of matrix math substituting for "the reporter" regurgitating what it was previously told. So the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect would apply just the same. If you have domain knowledge, you immediately see where the AI got it wrong. When you do not have domain knowledge, you have less chance of seeing where the AI was wrong.

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

#189

Post by eqvinox »

rmbyrro wrote: post #96
eqvinox wrote: post #65

> My hope is that in a couple of model generations, we'll trust AI to review MRIs the way we trust it to proofread our emails. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01947-1 I've started asking my doctors whether they use AI, and if they say yes look for another one.

That study seems to be confounding factors and rushing to a questionable conclusion. A very plausible explanation for the adenoma detection rate to have gone down is simply that its prevalence went down among the population in the second three-month period. This was not a randomized trial. Concluding that "AI usage degrades physicians' skills" is questionable at the very least.

There's a whole bunch of other studies on this topic, as well as metastudies, and from what I can tell the problem is real.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245195882... (+ cf. its references)

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

#190

Post by john-tells-all »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #117

> There's something incredibly peaceful about being in the hands of an expert you trust. [...] AI can absolutely shatter that feeling in an uncomfortable way [...] but I don't know if I can fully trust AI either. This really is key. We know we can't trust the AI, but at the same time we're also more comfortable asking the AI for clarifications or confronting it. Not having a time-bound appointment or paying by the ho…

There's a big difference between a _puzzle_ and a _mystery_. In a puzzle, the goal state is known, and as more pieces - data - appears, the goal gets closer. You know how far you are from the goal.

A mystery is worse. With each additional piece of data, the goal gets farther away. Everything is more and more confusing.

(Popularized by Malcom Gladwell)

Post reply on HN