Live data from Hacker News

Large Language Models Are Few-Shot Health Learners

arxiv.org

11–20 of 48 posts

Re: Large Language Models Are Few-Shot Health Learners

#11
post #3

I find the healthcare applications of this stuff so interesting. On the one hand, there are SO many reasons using LLMs to help people make health decisions should be an utterly terrible idea, to the point of immorality: - They hallucinate - They can't do mathematical calculations - They're incredibly good at being convincing, no matter what junk they are outputting And yet, despite being very aware of these limitatio…

> they can't do mathematical calculations

Tell me you never taught service courses for pre-meds without telling me you never taught service courses for pre-meds ;)

> They hallucinate, They're incredibly good at being convincing, no matter what junk they are outputting

Describes about a third of the doctors I've interacted with, tbh.

> And the advice I got seemed useful, and helped kick off additional research and useful conversations with veterinary staff.

It's similar to "Dr. Google". Possible to misuse. But also, there's nothing magical about the medical guild initiation process. Lots of people are smart enough to learn and understand the bits of knowledge they need to accurately self-diagnose and understand tradeoffs of treatment options, then use a medical professional as a consultant to fill in the gaps and validate mental models.

Unfortunately, most medical professionals aren't willing to engage with patients in that mode and would rather misdiagnose than work with an educated patient. (My bil -- a medical doctor, and a fairly accomplished one at that -- has been chided for using "Dr Google" at an urgent care before.)

> Do the benefits outweight the risks? As with pretty much every ethical question involving LLMs, there are no obviously correct answers here.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. At least in the US, you won't have access to any meaningful treatment without going through the guild anyways.

I don't think that using LLMs for medical diagnosis is a good idea, but it's important to admit when the status quo is so thoroughly hollowed out of any moral or practical justification that even terrible ideas are better than the alternative of leaving things as they are.

Re: Large Language Models Are Few-Shot Health Learners

#12
post #9
post #3

I find the healthcare applications of this stuff so interesting. On the one hand, there are SO many reasons using LLMs to help people make health decisions should be an utterly terrible idea, to the point of immorality: - They hallucinate - They can't do mathematical calculations - They're incredibly good at being convincing, no matter what junk they are outputting And yet, despite being very aware of these limitatio…

I'd be happy with summarizing and aggregating of health and longevity articles/papers to have a concise digest of strategies. Case in point, I'm a big fan of Andrew Huberman ( https://www.youtube.com/@hubermanlab ). He's quite prolific and his presentations pack a lot of data. Just taking all of that in would require a lot of time. Being able to have it condensed and indexed would be wonderful. Plenty of others like…

However useful his advice might be, Andrew Huberman isn't a doctor (of medicine).

Summarizing academic research is almost entirely unrelated to the practice of medicine. Medical diagnosis and treatment are different from more typical uses of LLMs in lots of important ways.

Re: Large Language Models Are Few-Shot Health Learners

#13
post #12
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be happy with summarizing and aggregating of health and longevity articles/papers to have a concise digest of strategies. Case in point, I'm a big fan of Andrew Huberman ( https://www.youtube.com/@hubermanlab ). He's quite prolific and his presentations pack a lot of data. Just taking all of that in would require a lot of time. Being able to have it condensed and indexed would be wonderful. Plenty of others like…

However useful his advice might be, Andrew Huberman isn't a doctor (of medicine). Summarizing academic research is almost entirely unrelated to the practice of medicine. Medical diagnosis and treatment are different from more typical uses of LLMs in lots of important ways.

Yeah, I was kind of tangential there, but it's strongly related.

Health and longevity is addressed from the other side of medicine. For example, a doctor could diagnose and prescribe medicine of one's type 2 diabetes, but in many of those cases that need is removed by following healthy practices (e.g., not being fat).

But back to the OP -- it seems like well-crafted LLMs could be idiot-savant helpers to guide doctors and ease their load.

Re: Large Language Models Are Few-Shot Health Learners

#14
post #3

I find the healthcare applications of this stuff so interesting. On the one hand, there are SO many reasons using LLMs to help people make health decisions should be an utterly terrible idea, to the point of immorality: - They hallucinate - They can't do mathematical calculations - They're incredibly good at being convincing, no matter what junk they are outputting And yet, despite being very aware of these limitatio…

Those bullet points make LLMs sound just like most human doctors.

Re: Large Language Models Are Few-Shot Health Learners

#15
post #11
post #3

I find the healthcare applications of this stuff so interesting. On the one hand, there are SO many reasons using LLMs to help people make health decisions should be an utterly terrible idea, to the point of immorality: - They hallucinate - They can't do mathematical calculations - They're incredibly good at being convincing, no matter what junk they are outputting And yet, despite being very aware of these limitatio…

> they can't do mathematical calculations Tell me you never taught service courses for pre-meds without telling me you never taught service courses for pre-meds ;) > They hallucinate, They're incredibly good at being convincing, no matter what junk they are outputting Describes about a third of the doctors I've interacted with, tbh. > And the advice I got seemed useful, and helped kick off additional research and use…

> Lots of people are smart enough to learn and understand the bits of knowledge they need to accurately self-diagnose and understand tradeoffs of treatment options, then use a medical professional as a consultant to fill in the gaps and validate mental models.

This is incredibly dangerous, lots of people are smart enough that they can research questions about their condition/care to discuss with their medical professional but should absolutely not be self-diagnosing. It is very reasonable to ask "I read about X what do you think" but you (and even physicians cannot do this for themselves by the way) should not be self-diagnosing anything.

This is like saying lots of doctors are smart enough to learn and understand the bits of knowledge they need to accurately train LLMs and put them in charge of [life threatening system].

> But also, there's nothing magical about the medical guild initiation process.

You're right, it's not magical. It's just 10+ years of medical training.

Re: Large Language Models Are Few-Shot Health Learners

#16
post #3

I find the healthcare applications of this stuff so interesting. On the one hand, there are SO many reasons using LLMs to help people make health decisions should be an utterly terrible idea, to the point of immorality: - They hallucinate - They can't do mathematical calculations - They're incredibly good at being convincing, no matter what junk they are outputting And yet, despite being very aware of these limitatio…

it seems to me that you can hardcode the answers to the riddles and exactly match symptoms with illnesses then sort them by likelyhood and provide again hardcoded tests (proposals for) to gather further data.

It also seems capable of anonymizing a large chunk of medical data that we would not want to share normally. Who knows, perhaps it could even be a means of payment.

Re: Large Language Models Are Few-Shot Health Learners

#17

I find chat GPT to be very helpful for working with programming languages that I’m less comfortable using (shell, python). I know enough to evaluate correct code in these languages, but producing it from scratch is more difficult, which seems like a sweet spot for carefully using ChatGPT for code. As a physician, I would not be surprised if the medical use of these tools ends up having similar value.

Unlike search/random chatbots the bar to beat in medicine (UpToDate) is much higher, when that happens I agree (in terms of diagnosis and management).

Re: Large Language Models Are Few-Shot Health Learners

#18
post #3

I find the healthcare applications of this stuff so interesting. On the one hand, there are SO many reasons using LLMs to help people make health decisions should be an utterly terrible idea, to the point of immorality: - They hallucinate - They can't do mathematical calculations - They're incredibly good at being convincing, no matter what junk they are outputting And yet, despite being very aware of these limitatio…

> found myself using them for medical advice (for pets so far, not yet for humans) Which model did you use?

GPT-4

I like running "can my dog eat avocado?" through smaller models to see what happens.

Re: Large Language Models Are Few-Shot Health Learners

#19
post #3

I find the healthcare applications of this stuff so interesting. On the one hand, there are SO many reasons using LLMs to help people make health decisions should be an utterly terrible idea, to the point of immorality: - They hallucinate - They can't do mathematical calculations - They're incredibly good at being convincing, no matter what junk they are outputting And yet, despite being very aware of these limitatio…

Whatever else its ills, the bot actually will pay attention to the tokens you're submitting to it to formulate its answer. That puts it well ahead of a majority of the doctors I've seen over the years. I say this without snark- it is simply true. I should also mention that a good quarter of the medical care folks who have assisted me have gone above and beyond in exceptional ways. It is a field of extremes.

Most doctors/vets I've seen recently are just massively overbooked. You wait 3 hours, then you have 4 minutes of conversation time for one (out of multiple) ailments before you’re booted out the door. Its like you're on an assembly line and the workers can't even keep up.

Re: Large Language Models Are Few-Shot Health Learners

#20
post #12
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be happy with summarizing and aggregating of health and longevity articles/papers to have a concise digest of strategies. Case in point, I'm a big fan of Andrew Huberman ( https://www.youtube.com/@hubermanlab ). He's quite prolific and his presentations pack a lot of data. Just taking all of that in would require a lot of time. Being able to have it condensed and indexed would be wonderful. Plenty of others like…

However useful his advice might be, Andrew Huberman isn't a doctor (of medicine). Summarizing academic research is almost entirely unrelated to the practice of medicine. Medical diagnosis and treatment are different from more typical uses of LLMs in lots of important ways.

> Summarizing academic research is almost entirely unrelated to the practice of medicine.

Do you mean basic science research? Evaluating academic medical research is considered a core competency for physicians.

https://www.royalcollege.ca/ca/en/canmeds/canmeds-framework/...

Post reply on HN