Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 500 posts

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

#201

Post by oofbey »

tedggh wrote: post #68

Believable and not shocking. LLMs literally may have saved my sons and potentially her mother too by allowing us to fact check a lot of non sense data and scare tactics by a group of at least 5 different doctors ambushing us to make a life changing decision in minutes. The problem is doctors, at least in the US, prioritize liability exposure over patients long term outcomes. Let’s say you need an intervention where t…

For all the doubt and negativity here I just want to say “good job” to you. Way to take matters into your own hands and protect your love ones. Haters gonna hate but you did it.

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

#203

Post by PAndreew »

I mean an LLM is a slightly stirred up soup of current human knowledge. It has an advantage in quantity of accumulated data and maybe connecting seemingly less connected parts of that data - but not reliably. The human has an advantage (for now) in data collection (seeing, hearing sensing the patient), actual agency, real world experiences and getting the useful data out of the stirred up soup. Both human and LLM are susceptible to bias and harmful influence. Let’s simply isolate them in the diagnostic process and then compare their output. Human collects data -> both human and LLM evaluate independently -> compare the results -> human may get new insights -> final diagnosis by human.

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

#204

Post by calmworm »

phoronixrly wrote: post #178
AntiUSAbah wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One doctor didn't want to give me ritalin, so i went to another one. One was against it, the other one saw it as a good idea. I would love to have real data, real statistics etc.

[flagged]

You could manipulate or write the input/prompt in a way that would make it recommend any drug you wanted.

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

#205

Post by fullstop »

codewench wrote: post #185
fullstop wrote: post #123

Earlier 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…

Yes? That's a very important piece of information, and I hope would be a thing a doctor asks, especially if there are concerns about weight or nutrition.

She's not there about her weight, though. I highly encourage you to talk to women about their experiences here.

The weight thing was not the key aspect of my original comment. They chastised my wife for continuing to give my daughter whole milk while being underweight, but did not make similar comments to me. That was the point.

For women, their pains and problems are far too often whisked away by hand waving and "it's hormones and periods" and serious issues are often overlooked. Very little has changed in that area over the last twenty years.

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

#206

Post by [deleted] »

gherkinnn wrote: post #35
pixel_popping wrote: post #25

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),…

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?

[deleted]

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

#207

Post by anitil »

voxl wrote: post #97
tedggh wrote: post #68

Believable and not shocking. LLMs literally may have saved my sons and potentially her mother too by allowing us to fact check a lot of non sense data and scare tactics by a group of at least 5 different doctors ambushing us to make a life changing decision in minutes. The problem is doctors, at least in the US, prioritize liability exposure over patients long term outcomes. Let’s say you need an intervention where t…

Needless conspiracy bullshit without sharing specifics

I agree with the accusation (conspiracy without specifics) but I think you could make that point in a more helpful way

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

#208

Post by phoronixrly »

calmworm wrote: post #204
phoronixrly wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You could manipulate or write the input/prompt in a way that would make it recommend any drug you wanted.

You think that in the country of the war on drugs such a thing will be approved?

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

#209

Post by dragonwriter »

andai wrote: post #147
dragonwriter wrote: post #126

Earlier 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…

Self-improving system given enough time to self-improve doesn't beat non-self-improving system?

Humans are, each individually and aggregates collectively, self-improving systems.

Much moreso than modern AI systems are.

Post reply on HN