I read this as "we disallow suing us for bad legal or medical advice"
ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others
271–280 of 439 posts
Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others
#272That’s a fair limitation. Legal and medical advice can directly impact someone’s life or safety, so AI tools must stay within ethical and regulatory boundaries. It’s better for AI to guide people toward professional help than pretend to replace it.
> AI tools must stay within ethical and regulatory boundaries. It’s better for AI to guide people toward professional help than pretend to replace it.
Both of those ships have _sailed_. I am not allowed to read the article, but judging from the title, they have no issues giving _you_ advice, but you can’t use it to give advice to another person.
Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others
#273I have seen more than once people using ChatGPT as a psychologist and psychiatrist and self diagnosing mental illnesses. It would be hilarious if it was not so disasterous. People with real questions get roped in by an enthusiastically confirming sycophantic model that will never question or push back, just confirm and lead on.
Tbh, and I usually do not like this way of thought, but these are lawsuits waiting to happen.
Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others
#274Things like this really favor models offered from countries that have fewer legal restrictions. I just don't think it's realistic to expect people not to have access to these capabilities. It would be reasonable to add a disclaimer. But as things stand I think it's fair to consider talking to ChatGPT to be the same as talking to a random person on the street, meaning normal free-speech protections would apply.
What capabilities? The article says the study found it was entirely correct 31% of the time.
The study is more positive than the 31% conveys.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/article/self-diagnosing-with-a...
The researchers compared ChatGPT-4 with its earlier 3.5 version and found significant improvements, but not enough.
In one example, the chatbot confidently diagnosed a patient’s rash as a reaction to laundry detergent. In reality, it was caused by latex gloves — a key detail missed by the AI, which had been told the patient studied mortuary science and used gloves.
...
While the researchers note ChatGPT did not get any of the answers spectacularly wrong, they have some simple advice.
“When you do get a response be sure to validate that response,” said Zada.
Which should be standard advice in most situations.
Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others
#275I read this not as "you can't ask ChatGPT about {medical or legal topic}" but rather "you can't build something on ChatGPT that provides {medical or legal} advice or support to someone else." 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…
(For anyone misunderstanding the reference to Epic, it's the name of an electronic healthcare record system widely used in American hospitals, not the game company Epic Games)
Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others
#276I read this not as "you can't ask ChatGPT about {medical or legal topic}" but rather "you can't build something on ChatGPT that provides {medical or legal} advice or support to someone else." 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…
And this seems actually wildly reasonable. It’s actually pretty scammy to take people’s money (or whatever your business model is) for legal or medical advice just to give them whatever AI shits out. If I wanted ChatGPT’s opinion (as I actually often do) I’d just ask ChatGPT for free or nearly-free. Anyone repackaging ChatGPT’s output as fit for a specialized purpose is scamming their customers.
You are failing to recognise all of the hard work which goes into "prompt engineering" to get AI to magically work!
Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others
#277I read this as "we disallow suing us for bad legal or medical advice"
If I pay for legal advice from you and all you did was give me chat gpt output, I can't sue openai anyway. This just clarifies that you can't put 'powered by chatgpt' on your AI lawyer service.
Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others
#278Last year ChatGPT helped save my life from having a stroke. LLMs are incredibly beneficial in providing medical information and advice today.
Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others
#279I'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,…
You should not be feeding your medical records into ChatGPT.
Why not?
I can imagine a few different reasons you might have, but I don't want to guess.
Re: ChatGPT terms disallow its use in providing legal and medical advice to others
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're not a doctor, how do you know it's accurate? This is the huge problem with using LLMs for this kind of thing. How do you verify that it is better? What is the ground truth you are testing it against? If you wanted to verify that ChatGPT could do math, you'd ask it 100 math problems and then (importantly) verify its answers with a calculator. How do you verify that ChatGPT can interpret medical information w…
I know it’s hard to accept, but it’s got to be weighed against the real-world alternative: You get about 5-8 minutes of face time with an actual doctor, but have to wait up to weeks to actually get in to see a doctor, except maybe at an urgent care or ER. Or people used to just play around on WebMD which was even worse since it wasn’t in any way tailored to what the patient’s stated situation is. There’s the rest of…
> You get about 5-8 minutes of face time with an actual doctor, but have to wait up to weeks to actually get in to see a doctor, except maybe at an urgent care or ER.
This depends heavily on where you are, and on how much money you want to throw at the problem.