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

301–310 of 748 posts

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

#301

Post by chasebank »

Anecdote on healthcare, adjacent to this.

My dog had been acting off. Wouldn’t eat, was hunched over, looked sad. We took him to a local vet who did an X-ray because they suspected a blockage. They didn’t see one, so they sent us home with standard pain meds.

Randomly, we had a dinner party that night and another vet was there. She heard the story and immediately said, “Go home right now and take your dog to an emergency vet with ultrasound.”

Turns out, at the time, most vets had been trained to use X-rays to look for blockages, but newer evidence showed X-rays were only something like 20% effective compared to ultrasound, which was closer to 95%. (forget percentages but somethign like that)

The ultrasound found an avocado pit stuck in his intestine. He had emergency surgery that night.

That chocolate chunk of an English Lab ended up living until 15, and only needed two more blockage surgeries after that...

I know doctors hate patients reading the internet, and LLMs are going to make that 1000% worse for them. But hopefully over time, we all adapt together and end up better off in the long run.

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

#302

Post by lostlogin »

uecker wrote: post #219
microgpt wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry? You use AI to hallucinate medical images and that's good?

It is not really the same as LLMs. I wouldn't call it AI. And I wouldn't say "makes up". I work in this field and this is certainly based also in part on my research.

‘Makes up’ is inaccurate for sure. But it’s not strictly true to call it acquired data either.

After years of collecting artifacts and errors, I have more and more respect for the tool.

But it’s jarring. I open a sequence, decrease the acquired resolution, add the AI and get a scan that’s quicker and higher resolution.

It’s an amazing time to be an MR tech.

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

#303

Post by perching_aix »

janmatejka wrote: post #205
TomasBM wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Graciously diagnosed for them by random unqualified people on the internet with an agenda, frequently before even any relevant interaction:

"Oh you like LLMs? You must in AI psychosis!"

Let's not pretend it is anything more than the run of the mill wet fart of a culture war label. It's quite literally the "TDS" of the anti-AI crowd.

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

#304

Post by aspenmartin »

operatingthetan wrote: post #281
ForceBru wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's "thinking"? What's "agency"? What's "human-like agency"? If "agency" is making decisions and performing corresponding actions in the real world, then LLMs most definitely LOOK LIKE they're making decisions (what's the next token? which tool to use? what's to say, in general? what idea to convey?) and performing actions (tool use). Can we tell whether they are ACTUALLY making decisions? Well, are the people aro…

I think you're mildly obfuscating the issues at hand by diving too deeply into philosophical questions. It's quite simple, the agency that the LLM appears to have is actually your own. Without a prompt an LLM does nothing. It has no thoughts between prompts about you or your problems.

You are implying definitions that don't seem to be mainstream; thinking is internally manipulating information to reason, infer, plan, solve problems, and form judgments or beliefs. Also -- "Without a prompt an LLM does nothing. It has no thoughts between prompts about you or your problems." it sounds like you paint this like it's something fundamental? It isn't. Nothing is stopping you from streaming information to an LLM and letting it process this information, this is precisely what people are trying to build.

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

#305

Post by operatingthetan »

singpolyma3 wrote: post #300
operatingthetan wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim that we are assigning human-like agency to a machine with none is simple and factual.

The idea that humans have agency is supernatural thinking imo

A free will versus determinism argument doesn't really have a place here. Consider instead that humans factually have 'the illusion of agency.' The LLM does not even that have that. It cannot act on it's own, it has no ongoing drama or intention. It only reacts to prompts.

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

#306

Post by aspenmartin »

operatingthetan wrote: post #288
corndoge wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often times the words produced do have legitimate factual information though. It's less psychosis and more a confluence of well known human tendencies - salience bias, automation bias, etc.

The big problem is often times they don't as well. That's why we can't rely on them.

Same with humans? Doctors, scientists...if a tool has any error rate above zero its not reliable?

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

#307

Post by goodpoint »

aetherson wrote: post #279
operatingthetan wrote: post #193

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. 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…

You're confusing the training method with the internal process. If I had you repeatedly attempt to learn how to make believable completions of partial documents about a given topic, you would eventually learn things about that topic and could use your knowledge to create more believable completions of documents about that topic.

believable != true

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

#308

Post by lemiffe »

operatingthetan wrote: post #286
aetherson wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing the training method with the internal process. If I had you repeatedly attempt to learn how to make believable completions of partial documents about a given topic, you would eventually learn things about that topic and could use your knowledge to create more believable completions of documents about that topic.

LLMs do not learn. You put it out to pasture and create a new one. "Memory" in a session is essentially a context window party trick.

The LLM itself doesn't, but agents can research, compare, add to their memory, and use that to narrow the results down to a probabilistically higher set of outputs; I have used an LLM for my own MRI results and it was nearly spot-on, verified by a subsequent visit to a specialist. YMMV as they say. But I do believe we are entering the era where LLMs are considering past interactions and long context windows to inform it of personal preferences and history in order to output more accurate results.

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

#309

Post by xioxox »

tsss wrote: post #246
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, this is standard advice. I note that the OP is in Germany. Maybe they do things differently, there.

In Germany we get zero-th opinion because you can't even get an appointment within the next 8 months.

And when you meet them, if you're unlucky they don't want to hear your medical history and want you out of the door in two minutes.

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

#310

Post by aspenmartin »

operatingthetan wrote: post #299
aspenmartin wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do learn in context, and very sample efficiently. Continual learning is active area of research and we sort of already have something resembling it with persistent context. So yes they do learn.

I consider that to be the illusion of learning. You are not wrong, I think they may actually learn in the future though. But not today.

That’s strange to me, what would you define as learning?
Post reply on HN