541–550 of 748 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is how do you know whether the answer is just the most persuasive or actually the most accurate one? It's hard to figure this out without domain knowledge.
Take the output to a Radiologist and verify the veracity of the statements.
A few years ago (before the AI craze), I was misdiagnosed with tuberculosis. I had a chronic cough, and an outsourced radiologist at a clinic found signs of tuberculosis. The findings were sent to the city's tuberculosis hospital, as required by the country's law. The doctors there took the radiologist's conclusion at face value and required me to stay at their hospital for at least 8 months under a strict, prison-li…
How is it possible? You can't diagnose tuberculosis just based on imaging and tuberculosis hospital has to know that!
I suppose there could be reasons, but I don't know them.
Thankfully I got a pretty detailed report that I couldn't read because of all the medical terms. I've fed this to Claude and asked for a human readable conclusion and it repeated pretty much everything the doctor told me, which was great, I now have a readable report for future reference. Secondly I asked it questions about what movements I should and shouldn't do, and it eventually I made a gym plan to improve stability and prevent any more wear and tear in my knee. Lastly I validated this with the assigned physiotherapist, and the plan I created with Claude was perfect!
I probably won't ever use AI as a second opinion, but I would definitely use it to ask numerous silly questions that would help me in day to day life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have multiple LLM subscriptions at any given time, plus an array of local models. When I ask a question outside of my domain of expertise I like to ask all of the LLMs I have access to. I also create separate sessions and ask the same question multiple ways. It’s revealing to see how many different and contradictory answers I get, most of which are presented confidently. The last time I ran a medical question throu…
In my day job we tried creating a credit assessor tool using LLM as the credit assessor. It did great, generated a report on the assessed business that was incredibly detailed and plausible. Then I started running tests and getting into the details, and found that if you ran the same report on the same data, it generated completely different, still very plausible, results. I could run the same source data through the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Super-resolution is certainly distinct from hallucinating - it just rearranged data that was already there to make it easier for the human eye to see - but should be used with care. I can easily imagine that an upscaling algorithm makes it so a certain defect is clearly not present, when the source image is ambiguous (which the radiologist would have noticed), and in reality the defect is present.
MRI is already a form of compressed sensing, I would much prefer statistical forms of super resolution to ones based on training data. Even if it is only trained on MRIs it will see some noise and plausibly expand it into whatever disease fits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Then we had computerized encyclopedias and search engines that searched the library.
I mean, you had to work for the knowledge. Sometimes you didn’t know something and no one else knew either, so you had to wait until you got a chance to find out, but you would think about it and sometimes you would be right when you found a reference source.
I’ll also note, Wikipedia is a secondary source. It is not a reliable source of truth. It is more like the ‘ask someone else’ alternative than anything else, it’s just ‘someone else’ is a person on the internet who writes Wikipedia articles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like people who expect ChatGPT to be really good at chess because chess engines with super-human performance have been around for decades, so obviously the latest frontier LLM that took billions to train should find the task trivial. Actually, I'm curious what ChatGPT 5.5's ELO is- I wouldn't be too surprised if it's 2000+ just from its basic understanding of chess principles from all the content it has digested…
ChatGPT is completely unplayable at chess on its own. It's unable to keep track of the state of the chess position and therefore will make an illegal move within about 10-12 moves. I would put GPT-5.5's rating at 400, since it can't even make legal moves reliably. I've tried to pay chess with GPT-5.5, even played it again tonight, allowing it to use `python-chess` to keep track of the state of the position and to get…
I don’t understand the negative reactions. Medical care as it exists requires the doctor and patient to have their brains switched on. I’ve almost never had a problem where a doctor provides me with a diagnosis and I go about my day. Most of the times that I have, I’ve been confident about the problem and known what I needed. The doctor was a barrier to accessing care. Dr. GPT is a good brainstorming tool. It helps s…
This is kinda the case though. In Poland I met only one psychiatrist that knew about DSM-5. In this year. DSM-5 was a thing from 2013.
Doctors are people just as us, not every single of them is good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me what helped is taking 7.5 mg of mirtazapine. At higher levels it's an anti-depressant but at lower levels it's an anti-histamine. It gets me drowsy. Together with 0.3 mg melatonin it knocks me out. I only take it 3 times per week max to not have habituation kick in. So 3 days out of 7 days I have guaranteed good sleep. The other 4 days are a toss up. But an average of 5 days of good sleep is much better than 3…
Is the dutch healthcare system broadly against hypnotics? Culture (of the country or its medical system) can massively influence prescriptions or their lack thereof e.g. france is pretty famous for prescribing hypnotics very easily (and having a broad range of them), while the UK is generally a lot more reluctant.