Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you on this specific study, however, I can't really wrap my head about the fact that doctors will be better than AI models on the long-run. After all, medicine is all about knowledge, experience and intelligence (maybe "pattern recognition"), all those, we must assume that the best AI models (especially ones focusing solely in the medical field) would largely beat large majority of humans (aka doctors),…
> What is the specific capability (or combination of capabilities) that people believe will remain permanently (or at least for decades) where a top medical AI cannot match or exceed the performance of a good human doctor? Let's put liability and ethics aside, let's be purely objective about it. Being a human when a patient is experiencing what is potentially one of the worst moments of their life. AI could be a tool…
OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
181–190 of 500 posts
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you on this specific study, however, I can't really wrap my head about the fact that doctors will be better than AI models on the long-run. After all, medicine is all about knowledge, experience and intelligence (maybe "pattern recognition"), all those, we must assume that the best AI models (especially ones focusing solely in the medical field) would largely beat large majority of humans (aka doctors),…
This study is based almost entirely on pre-existing "vignettes." In other words, on tests that are already known and have existed for years, the model did well, which is precisely what you should expect. It provides no information on real world outcomes or expectations of performance in such a setting. A simple question might be "how accurate are patient electronic health records typically?" Finally, if the Internet…
This is basically the only way how to ethically approach the topic. First you verify performance on “vignettes” as you say. Then if the performance appears satisfying you can continue towards larger tests and more raw sensor modalities. If the results are still promising (both that they statistically agree with the doctors, but also that when they disagree we find the AIs actions to fall benignly). These phases take a lot of time and carefull analysises. And only after that can we carefully design experiments where the AI works together with doctors. For example an experiment where the AI would offer suggestion for next steps to a doctor. These test need to be constructed with great care by teams who are very familiar with medical ethics, statistics and the problems of human decision making. And if the results are still positive just then can we move towards experiments where the humans are supervising the AI less and the AI is more in the driving seat.
Basically to validate this ethically will take decades. So we can’t really fault the researchers that they have only done the first tentative step along this long journey.
> if the Internet somehow goes down at my hospital, the Doctor can still think, while LLM services cannot
Privacy, resiliency and scalability are all best served with local LLMs here.
> If the power goes out at the hospital, the Doctor can still operate, while even local LLMs cannot.
Generators would be the obvious answer there. If we can make machines which outperform human doctors in realworld conditions providing generator backed UPS power for said machines will be a no brainer.
> You're going to need to improve the power efficiency of these models by at least two orders of magnitude before they're generally useful replacements of anything.
Why? Do you have numbers here or just feels?
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
To answer your question: talking to a human. Medicine is so much more than "knowledge, experience, and pattern matching", as any patient ever can attest to. Why is it so hard for some people to understand that humans need other humans and human problems can't be solved with technology?
I would personally vastly, vastly prefer to go to a robot doctor, who diagnoses, treats and nurses me. What exactly do I need from a human here? Except of course being the one making the system.
theyre also going to tell you things other than just what your insurance is agreeing to.
a robo doctor will be corrupt in ways that a regular doctor can be held accountable, but without the individual accountability
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, yes, but when was your last period? This even translates to the pediatric space. I took all of my kids to the pediatrician because either they don't make comments to me like they do to my wife, or I don't take shit from them. I'm not sure which. Here's an example: My wife and daughter were there and the doctor asked what kind of milk my daughter was drinking. She said "whole milk" and the doctor made a comment a…
> My daughter is in her 20s now and is still small -- it's just the way she is. When she goes to see her primary, do you know what their first question is? "When was your last period." Is that supposed to be a problem? How does it connect to the story in your comment? The question seems to be warranted to me, since being underweight can stop you from menstruating. So if you find someone thin and her last period was o…
Particularly given the alarming stories of people being prosecuted for having miscarriages, it feels ridiculous.
If anything I hope more automated diagnostics and triage could help women and POC get better care, but only if there’s safeguards against prejudice. There’s studies showing different rates of pain management across races and sexes, for example. A broken bone is a broken bone, regardless of sex or race.
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
So much of what I know from women in my life is that the human element of medicine is almost a strict negative for them. As a guy it hasn't been much better, but at least doctors listen to me when I say something.
Yes, yes, but when was your last period? This even translates to the pediatric space. I took all of my kids to the pediatrician because either they don't make comments to me like they do to my wife, or I don't take shit from them. I'm not sure which. Here's an example: My wife and daughter were there and the doctor asked what kind of milk my daughter was drinking. She said "whole milk" and the doctor made a comment a…
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
> After all, medicine is all about knowledge, experience and intelligence (maybe "pattern recognition"), all those, we must assume that the best AI models (especially ones focusing solely in the medical field) would largely beat large majority of humans No, I don’t see that we must. > if we already have this assumption for software engineers No, this doesn’t follow, and even if it did, while I am aware that the CEOs…
You’re holding on to the intuition (hope) that we are smarter than the LLMs in some hard to define way. Maybe. But it’s getting harder and harder to define a task that humans beat LLMs on. On pretty much any easily quantifiable test of knowledge or reasoning, the machines win. I agree experienced humans are still better on “judgement” tasks in their field. But the judgement tasks are kinda necessarily ones where ther…
Quite to the contrary, I think it's extremely trivial to find a task where humans beat LLMs.
For all the money that's been thrown at agentic coding, LLMs still produce substantially worse code than a senior dev. See my own prior comments on this for a concrete example [1].
These trivial failure cases show that there are dimensions to task proficiency - significant ones - that benchmarks fail to capture.
> Is medical diagnosis one of these high judgement tasks?
Situational. I would break diagnosis into three types:
1. The diagnosis comes from objective criteria - laboratory values, vital signs, visual findings, family history. I think LLMs are likely already superior to humans in this case.
2. The diagnosis comes from "chart lore" - reading notes from prior physicians and realizing that there is new context now points to a different diagnosis. (That new context can be the benefit of hindsight into what they already tried and failed and/or new objective data). LLMs do pretty good at this when you point them at datasets where all the prior notes were written by humans, which means that those humans did a nontrivial part of the diagnostic work. What if the prior notes were written by LLMs as well? Will they propagate their own mistakes forward? Yet to be studied in depth.
3. The diagnosis comes from human interaction - knowing the difference between a patient who's high as a bat on crack and one who's delirious from infection; noticing that a patient hesitates slightly before they assure you that they've been taking all their meds as prescribed; etc. I doubt that LLMs will ever beat humans at this, but if LLMs can be proven to be good at point 2, then point 3 alone will not save human physicians.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Calavar#47891432
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#187I don't think AI is a good use case for such critical situations. Maybe in a decade we have AI help out doctors with doing a pre check. What if Ai finds nothing and the doctor does not bother to look into it further? It is this small question which breaks the technology from any angle later down the road from my POV. AI has to stay optional here. Even if AI is used to sample or summarize a lot of data that a human co…
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#188The negative reactions here are baffling me. The fact that we can even get to say 30% with computer is amazing. So much hatred towards AI and anything from the frontier labs like OpenAI (or Goog for that matter) makes no sense.
I for one am delighted for my acquaintances in the medical field with their cushy, cartel-supported salaries to feel the existential dread of AI coming for their jobs like I have
If you, like me, are in the software field, know that this is likely the most comfortable job even invented by humanity, we should really be paid just above the poverty line in exchange.
Re: OpenAI’s o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients vs. 50-55% by triage doctors
#189The negative reactions here are baffling me. The fact that we can even get to say 30% with computer is amazing. So much hatred towards AI and anything from the frontier labs like OpenAI (or Goog for that matter) makes no sense.