OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors

I'd be very very hesitant to trust studies like this. It's very easy to mess up these benchmarks.

See for example this recent paper where AI managed to beat radiologists on interpreting x-rays... when the AI didn't even have access to the x-rays: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.21687 (on a pre existing "large scale visual question answering benchmark for generalist chest x-ray understanding" that wasn't intentionally messed up).

And in interpreting x-ray's human radiologists actually do just look at the x-rays. In the context the article is discussing the human doctors don't just look at the notes to diagnose the ER patient. You're asking them to perform a task that isn't necessary, that they aren't experienced in, or trained in, and then saying "the AI outperforms them". Even if the notes aren't accidentally giving away the answer through some weird side channel, that's not that surprising.

Which isn't to say that I think the study is either definitely wrong, or intentionally deceptive. Just that I wouldn't draw strong conclusions from a single study here.

The Guardian needs to raise their bar on what to report and how to give readers full context on the ongoing NFT AI trust me bro crypto scam and that context would be that it is a mathematical model of human language and not medical expert or replacement for one.

It is easy to overinterpret this based on the headline, the doctors were actually at a slight disadvantage. This isn't how they normally work, this is a little more like a med school pop quiz:

  An AI and a pair of human doctors were each given the same standard electronic health record to read – typically including vital sign data, demographic information and a few sentences from a nurse about why the patient was there. The AI identified the exact or very close diagnosis in 67% of cases, beating the human doctors, who were right only 50%-55% of the time.... The study only tested humans against AIs looking at patient data that can be communicated via text. The AI’s reading of signals, such as the patient’s level of distress and their visual appearance, were not tested. That means the AI was performing more like a clinician producing a second opinion based on paperwork.

"I don't know, let's run more tests" is also a very important ability of doctors that was apparently not tested here. In addition to all the normal methodological problems with overinterpreting results in AI/LLMs/ML/etc. Sadly I do think part of the problem here is cynical (even maniacal) careerist doctors who really shouldn't be working at hospitals. This means that even though I am generally quite anti-LLM, and really don't like the idea of patients interacting with them directly, I am a little optimistic about these being sanity/laziness checkers for health professionals.

It’s a peer reviewed study in one of the world’s top science journals. It’s not some random person on a podcast.