231–240 of 439 posts
I wouldn't be surprised to see new products from OpenAI targeted specifically at doctors and/or lawyers. Forbidding them from using the regular ChatGPT with legal terms would be a good way to do price discrimination.
I wouldn't be surprised to see new products from OpenAI targeted specifically at doctors and/or lawyers. Forbidding them from using the regular ChatGPT with legal terms would be a good way to do price discrimination.
As a doctor I hope it still allows me to get up to speed on latest treatments for rare diseases that I see once every 10 years. It saves me a lot of time rather than having to dig through all the new information since I last encountered a rare disease.
I've used ChatGPT to help understand medical records too. It's definitely faster than searching everything on my own, but whether the information is reliable still depends on personal judgment or asking a real doctor. More people are treating it like a doctor or lawyer now, and the more it's used that way, the higher the chance something goes wrong. OpenAI is clearly drawing a line here. You're free to ask questions,…
I've used ChatGPT to help understand medical records too. It's definitely faster than searching everything on my own, but whether the information is reliable still depends on personal judgment or asking a real doctor. More people are treating it like a doctor or lawyer now, and the more it's used that way, the higher the chance something goes wrong. OpenAI is clearly drawing a line here. You're free to ask questions,…
I’ve found it just as accurate and a better experience than using telehealth or generalist doctors
The thing that gets me about AI is that people act like most doctors or most lawyers are not … shitty and your odds of running into a below average one are almost 50/50
Doctors these days are more like physicists when most of the time you need a mechanic or engineer. I’ve had plenty of encounters wher I had to insist on an MRI or on specific bloodwork to hone in on the root cause of an ailment where the doctor just chalked it up to diet and exercise
Anything can be misused, including google, but the answer isn’t to take it away from people
Legal/financial advice is so out of reach for most people, the harsh truth is that ChatGPT is better than nothing and anyone who would follow what it says blindly is bound to fuck up those decisions up in some way anyway
On the other hand, if you can leverage it same as any other tool it’s a legitimate force multiplier
The cynic in me thinks this is just being done in the interest of those professions, but that starts to feel a bit tin foil-y
That anyone would use any LLM for medical advice is beyond me. It’s webMD with slicker ui. Obviously they should disallow them and more broadly should be banned from providing anyone medical Advice
What’s wrong with WebMD? I’ve gotten a lot of value when it comes to questions about diet, supplements, exercise, even getting advice on incidents like my dog getting a porcupine quill in his paw. It’s a lot better than Googling for ancient forum threads.
In all seriousness, it’s really about the relative lack of research skills that people have. If you know how to do research and apply critical thinking, then there’s no problem. The cynic in me blames the education system (in the US, idk how other countries stack up).
Wasn't there a recent OAI dev day in which they had some users come on stage and discuss how helpful ChatGPT was in parsing diagnoses from different doctors? I guess the legal risks were large enough to outweigh this
I'd wager it's probably more that there's an identifiable customer and specific product to be sold. Doctors, hospitals, EHR companies and insurers all are very interested in paying for a validated version of this thing.
For example, Epic couldn't embed ChatGPT into their application to have it read your forms for you. You can still ask it - but Epic can't build it.
That said, I haven't found the specific terms and conditions that are mentioned but not quoted in context.
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.
I wonder if the reason AI is better at these diagnostics, is because the amount of time it spends with the patient is unbounded. Whereas a doctor is always restricted by the amount of time they have with the patient.
It's an imperfect situation for sure, but I'd like to see more data.