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

201–210 of 748 posts

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

#201

Post by sxg »

ohyes wrote: post #184
sxg wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I get what you're saying, but I'm not deciding what should and shouldn't count as an alternative to X. I'm trying to answer the counterfactual: how do people behave in an alternative world without Wikipedia but otherwise identical to our world?

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

#204

Post by NegativeK »

hennell wrote: post #53

Personally my favourite feature of the new ai world is not when I use it directly but it's when one of my managers uses it to try to fix a problem, then issue to me their findings and I have to defend my process to someone who understands neither my process, their suggested solution nor often the problem they're solving in the first place.

I've seen coworkers do this to each other when their expertise is in different domains.

I find that AI can be incredibly useful, but just text dumping its output into a conversation feels insulting.

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

#205

Post by janmatejka »

TomasBM wrote: post #185
appplication wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Because some people develop actual psychosis. They go down some rabbit hole with an LLM until the LLM makes them believe they invented new kind of physics that makes them go harassing experts who obviously try to ignore them because its all nonsense.

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

#206

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#207

Post by tsoukase »

Medical opinion will remain one of the last frontiers of LLMs. There so many critical factors that are inappropriate for them. They cannot perform a clinical exam, they have to collect the needed exams and most importantly a life might be at stake (OK, you cannot die from a shoulder problem but you can become handicapped forever).

All that said, as a doctor I am totally open and even happy when a patient refers they took advice from AI. I explain the holes of their reasoning and integrate it with mine. It helps rather than hurts the patient-doctor connection.

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

#208

Post by Aurornis »

> They injected me with Traumeel, which is registered in Germany as a homeopathic medicine "without a therapeutic indication".

This single sentence provides a huge clue about what’s going on: This person’s medical team is not good. It’s not hard to get an LLM to perform better than a team that is injecting homeopathic botanical formulations and performing procedures that aren’t indicated for the condition.

I think the real takeaway from this article shouldn’t be “ChatGPT is better than doctors”. It’s a story about LLMs identifying that someone was not in good hands.

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

#209

Post by zephen »

> There's something incredibly peaceful about being in the hands of an expert you trust.

I want to know if this is a religious thing, or is related to never having had multiple doctors so bad it seemed like they were actively trying to kill you, or both. I've never had this peaceful experience personally within the realm of healthcare.

> AI can absolutely shatter that feeling in an uncomfortable way

Good. Reality is always good.

> but I don't know if I can fully trust AI either.

WTF??!? Why on earth would anybody ever think they could fully trust LLMs? Even their most vocal proponents concede they aren't infallible panaceas.

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

#210

Post by singpolyma3 »

operatingthetan wrote: post #193
appplication wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. Treating it as if it is an intelligence is the problem. The problem is that AI psychosis is fundamentally the belief that an LLM is "thinking" at all. Outputs are just believable word vomit which resembles…

That presumes that we have a definition of "thinking" or that we know that anything is "thinking" when in fact neither is true.

The problem is real but I don't think positing a philosophical root is helpful

Post reply on HN