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

ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

ctvnews.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 439 posts

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#211

Post by lukan »

sarchertech wrote: post #204
ekianjo wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They poke, they prod, they manipulate, they look, listen, and smell. Rarely. Most visits are done in 5 minutes. The physician that takes their time to check everything like you claim almost does not exist anymore.

That depends entirely on what the problem is. You might not get a long examination on your first visit for common complaint with no red flags. But even then just because you don’t think they are using most of their senses, doesn’t mean they aren’t.

It depends entirely on the local health care system and your health insurance. In germany for example it comes in 2 tiers. Premium or standard. Standard comes with no time for the patient. (Or not even being able to get a appointment)

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#212

Post by maroonblazer »

Johnny555 wrote: post #121
spullara wrote: post #74

This title is inaccurate. What they are disallowing are users using ChatGPT to offer legal and medical advice to other people. First parties can still use ChatGPT for medical and legal advice for themselves.

While they aren't stopping users from getting medical advice, the new terms (which they say are pretty much the same as the old terms), seem to prohibit users from seeking medical advice even for themselves if that advice would otherwise come from a licensed health professional: https://openai.com/en-GB/policies/usage-policies/ Your use of OpenAI services must follow these Usage Policies: Protect people. Everyone has…

The important terms here are "provision" and "without appropriate involvement by a licensed professional".

Both of these, separately and taken together, indicate that the terms apply to how the output of ChatGPT is used, not a change to its output altogether.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#213

Post by bongodongobob »

lambda wrote: post #203
spullara wrote: post #74

This title is inaccurate. What they are disallowing are users using ChatGPT to offer legal and medical advice to other people. First parties can still use ChatGPT for medical and legal advice for themselves.

Please, when commenting on the title of a story on HN: include the title that you are commenting on. The admins regularly change the title based on complaints, which can be really confusing when the top, heavily commented thread is based on the original title. According to the Wayback machine, the title was "OpenAI ends legal and medical advice on ChatGPT", while now when I write this the title is "ChatGPT terms disa…

Tf are you yapping about

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#214

Post by lazide »

pksebben wrote: post #118
ctoth wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing this problem more and more with humans. What should we call it? Maybe Hallucinations? Where there is an accurate true thing and then it just gets altered by these guys who call themselves journalists and reporters and the like until it is just ... completely unrecognizable? I'm pretty sure it's a fundamental issue with the architecture.

Whenever I hear arguments about LLM hallucination, this is my first thought. Like, I already can't trust the lion's share of information in news, social media, (insert human-created content here). Sometimes because of abject disinformation, frequently just because humans are experts at being wrong. At least with the LLM (for now) I know it's not trying to sell me bunkum or convince me to vote a particular way. Mostly…

LLMs are trained on material doing all these things though.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#215

Post by teitoklien »

pinnochio wrote: post #116
terminalshort wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you saying we shouldn't get AI advice without a "professional", then? Why is everybody here saying "in my experience it's just as good or better, but we need rules to make people use the worse option"? I have narcolepsy and it took a dozen doctors before they got it right. AI nails the diagnosis. Everybody should be using it.

Survivorship bias.

Experience working with doctors a few times, and then we’ll see all the bias if one is still surviving lol. Doctors are some of the most corrupt professions who are more focused on selling drugs they get paid commission for to promote, or they obsess over tons and tons of expensive medical tests, that they themselves often know is not needed, except they ask for it, simply out of fear of courts suing them for negligence in future or because again , THEY GET A COMMISSION from the testing agencies for sending them clients.

And even with all of that info, they often come out with the wrong conclusions at times. Doctors do a critically important role in our society and during covid they risked their lives for us, more than anyone else, i do not want to insult or bring down the amount of hard work doctors do for their society.

But worshipping them as holier than thou gods is bullshit, that almost anyone who has spent some time with going back and forth with various doctors over the course of years will come to the conclusion of.

Having an AI assistant doesnt hurt, in terms of medical hints, we need to make having Personal Responsibility popular again, in society’s obsession for making every thing “idiot proof” or “baby proof” we keep losing all sorts of useful and interesting solutions because our politicians have a strong itch to regulate anything and everything they can get their hands on, to leave a mark on society.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#216

Post by Terr_ »

terminalshort wrote: post #107
ctoth wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing this problem more and more with humans. What should we call it? Maybe Hallucinations? Where there is an accurate true thing and then it just gets altered by these guys who call themselves journalists and reporters and the like until it is just ... completely unrecognizable? I'm pretty sure it's a fundamental issue with the architecture.

Also these guys who call themselves doctors. I have narcolepsy and the first 10 or so doctors I went to hallucinated the wrong diagnosis.

LLMs aren't described as hallucinators (just) because they sometimes give results we don't find useful, but because their method is flawed.

For example, the simple algorithm is_it_lupus(){return false;} could have an extremely competitive success rate for medical diagnostics... But it's also obviously the wrong way to go about things.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#217

Post by pksebben »

lazide wrote: post #214
pksebben wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I hear arguments about LLM hallucination, this is my first thought. Like, I already can't trust the lion's share of information in news, social media, (insert human-created content here). Sometimes because of abject disinformation, frequently just because humans are experts at being wrong. At least with the LLM (for now) I know it's not trying to sell me bunkum or convince me to vote a particular way. Mostly…

LLMs are trained on material doing all these things though.

true, true. Turtles all the way down and such.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#218

Post by ChadNauseam »

mbesto wrote: post #188
sethhochberg wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is written to be tounge-in-cheek, but its really almost the exact same problem playing out on both sides. LLMs hallucinate because training on source material is a lossy process and bigger, heavier LLM-integrated systems that can research and cite primary sources are slow and expensive so few people use those techniques by default. Lowest time to a good enough response is the primary metric. Journalists o…

> LLMs hallucinate because training on source material is a lossy process and bigger, LLMs hallucinate because they are probabilistic by nature not because the source material is lossy or too big. They are literally designed to create some level of "randomness" https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/defeating-nondeterminism-in...

So if you set temperature=0 and run the LLM serially (making it deterministic) it would stop hallucinating? I don't think so. I would guess that the nondeterminism issues mentioned in the article are not at all a primary cause of hallucinations.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#219

Post by joquarky »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #218
mbesto wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LLMs hallucinate because training on source material is a lossy process and bigger, LLMs hallucinate because they are probabilistic by nature not because the source material is lossy or too big. They are literally designed to create some level of "randomness" https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/defeating-nondeterminism-in...

So if you set temperature=0 and run the LLM serially (making it deterministic) it would stop hallucinating? I don't think so. I would guess that the nondeterminism issues mentioned in the article are not at all a primary cause of hallucinations.

I thought that temperature can never actually be zero or it creates a division problem or something similar.

I'm no ML or math expert, just repeating what I've heard.

Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others

#220

Post by Aurornis »

rafaelmn wrote: post #38
cpfohl wrote: post #3

Tricky…my son had a really rare congenital issue that no one could solve for a long time. After it was diagnosed I walked an older version of chat gpt through our experience and it suggested my son’s issue as a possibility along with the correct diagnostic tool in just one back and forth. I’m not saying we should be getting AI advice without a professional, but I’m my case it could have saved my kid a LOT of physical…

>After it was diagnosed I walked an older version of chat gpt through our experience and it suggested my son’s issue as a possibility along with the correct diagnostic tool in just one back and forth. Something I've noticed is that it's much easier to lead the LLM to the answer when you know where you want to go (even when the answer is factually wrong !), it doesn't have to be obvious leading but just framing the qu…

> Something I've noticed is that it's much easier to lead the LLM to the answer when you know where you want to go

This goes both ways, too. It’s becoming common to see cases where people become convinced they have a condition but doctors and/or tests disagree. They can become progressively better and better at getting ChatGPT to return the diagnosis by refining their prompts and learning what to tell it as well as what to leave out.

Previously we joked about WebMD convincing people they had conditions they did not, but ChatGPT is far more powerful for these people.

Post reply on HN