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

ChatGPT Health

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 677 posts

Re: ChatGPT Health

#451

Post by antisthenes »

kypen wrote: post #245
mlmonkey wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first was "dementia" (or something related to it, I don't remember the exact medical term). The second was something to do with fluid in some spinal column (I am sorry once again, I do not remember the medical term; they operated on him to drain it, which is why I remember it). I don't remember the third one, unfortunately.

Perhaps a CSF leak due to a dural sack tear in the spine? Was his symptom only having headaches while standing? Happened to my wife. 6 weeks of absolute hell. On second thought — the opposite. A bulge/blockage of CSF?

Apparently, as I've recently learned due to a debilitating headache, CSF pressure (both high and low) can cause a whole host of symptoms, ranging from mild headache and blurred vision to coma and death.

It's pretty wild that a doctor wouldn't have that as a hypothesis.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#452

Post by ethbr1 »

jtbayly wrote: post #431
Rebuff5007 wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard a lot of such anecdotes. I'm not saying its ill-intentioned, but the skeptic in me is cautious that this is the type of reasoning which propels the anti-vax movement. I wish / hope the medical community will address stories like this before people lose trust in them entirely. How frequent are mis-diagnosis like this? How often is "user research" helping or hurting the process of getting good health outcome…

I think the ultimate answer is that people must take responsibility for their own health and that of their children and loved ones. That includes research and double-checking your doctors. True, the result is that a good number of people will be convinced they have something (eg. autism) that they don't. But the anecdotes are piled up into giant mountains at this point. A good number of people in my family have had a…

Patients should always advocate for their own care.

This includes researching their own condition, looking into alternate diagnoses/treatments, discussing them with a physician, and potentially getting a second opinion.

Especially the second opinion. There are good and bad physicians everywhere.

But advocating also does not mean ignoring a physician's response. If they say it's unlikely to be X because of Y, consider what they're saying!

Physicians are working from a deep well of experience in treating the most frequent problems, and some will be more or less curious about alternate hypotheses.

When it comes down to it, House-style medical mysteries are mysteries because they're uncommon. For every "doc missed Lyme disease" story there are many more "it's just flu."

Re: ChatGPT Health

#453

Post by nostrademons »

mcny wrote: post #444
jtbayly wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the ultimate answer is that people must take responsibility for their own health and that of their children and loved ones. That includes research and double-checking your doctors. True, the result is that a good number of people will be convinced they have something (eg. autism) that they don't. But the anecdotes are piled up into giant mountains at this point. A good number of people in my family have had a…

But we are idiots. There's a reason why flour has iron and salt has iodine, right? Individual responsibility simply does not scale.

We are idiots who will bear the consequences of our own idiocy. The big issue with all transactions done under significant information asymmetry is moral hazard. The person performing the service has far less incentive to ensure a good outcome past the conclusion of the transaction than the person who lives with the outcome.

Applies doubly now that many health care interactions are transactional and you won't even see the same doctor again.

On a systemic level, the likely outcome is just that people who manage their health better will survive, while people who don't will die. Evolution in action. Managing your health means paying attention when something is wrong and seeking out the right specialist to fix it, while also discarding specialists who won't help you fix it.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#454

Post by nostrademons »

rl3 wrote: post #362
nomel wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General doctors aren't trained for problem solving, they're trained for memorization. The doctors that are good at problem solving aren't general doctors.

That's a sweeping generalization unsupported by facts. In reality you'll find the vast majority of GPs are highly intelligent and quite good at problem solving. In fact, I'd go so far as to say their training is so intensive and expansive that laypeople who make such comments are profoundly lacking in awareness on the topic. Physicians are still human, so like anything there's of course bad ones, specialists included…

Even if they are good at problem solving, a series of 10-minute appointments spaced out in 2-3 month intervals while they deal with a case load of hundreds of other patients will not let them do it. That's the environment that most GPs work under in the modern U.S. health care system.

Pay for concierge medicine and a private physician and you get great health care. That's not what ordinary health insurance pays for.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#455

Post by lunias »

Might be useful if they start letting me write my own prescriptions or can send a robot to my house to run tests or perform surgery. Otherwise, I don't really see how this changes anything for me; the doctor - that I already have to see - should just check their analysis with AI on my behalf.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#456

Post by sotix »

My cousin just finished years of medical school, residency, and his first job as a psychiatrist. He opened up a private practice a year ago and has been working hard to acquire a client base. I fear this will destroy his livelihood. He can't compete on the convenience. To see him, a person has to reach him via phone or email, process their healthcare information, and then physically visit him. All while this tool has been designed to process health information, which can also speak out loud with the patient instantly. Sure he can prescribe medications, but many people he sees do not need medication. Even if the doctor is better, the convenience of this tool will likely win out.

If America wants to take care of its people, it needs to tear down the bureaucracy that is our healthcare system and streamline a single payer system. Otherwise, doctors will be unable to compete with tools like this because our healthcare system is so inconvenient.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#457

Post by Philipp2398 »

logicallee wrote: post #412
ihtef wrote: post #408

I always check my blood test and mrı results with ChatGPT before showing to Doctor. Doctor says same thing what ChatGPT says and it's giving more clear and detailed information. However we shouldn't trust chatgpt result 100%. It's just good to take an idea. Also we shouldn't trust any doctor 100%

I ran a part of your comment through ChatGPT, and it said you're typing on a Turkish keyboard or have it set as your language. Is this true?

I ran a part of your comment through Clause, and it said you're typing on a Hungarian keyboard or have it set as your language. Is this true?

Re: ChatGPT Health

#458

Post by nostrademons »

exabrial wrote: post #440

Going to a probabilistic system for something that can/should be deterministic sets off a lot of red flags. I’ve worked medical software packages, specifically a drug interaction checker for hospitals. The system cannot be written like a social media website… it has to fail by default, and only succeed when an exact correct solution was determined. This result must be repeatable given the same inputs. The consequence…

Health and medicine is very far from deterministic. Your drug interaction checker is deterministic because the non-determinism is handled at a higher level (the doctor / patient interaction) in the health care system. Individual patients often respond wildly differently to the same medicine even in the absence of drug interactions.

Similarly the non-determinism in ChatGPT should be handled at a higher level. It can suggest possibilities for diagnosis and treatment, but you should still evaluate those possibilities with the help of a trained physician.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#459

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

Rebuff5007 wrote: post #379
mlmonkey wrote: post #156

My uncle had an issue with his balance and slurred speech. Doctors claimed dementia and sent him home. It kept becoming worse and worse. Then one day I entered the symptoms in ChatGPT (or was it Gemini?) and asked it for the top 3 hypotheses. The first one was related to dementia. The second was something else (I forget the long name). I took all 3 to his primary care doc who had kept ignoring the problem, and asked…

I've heard a lot of such anecdotes. I'm not saying its ill-intentioned, but the skeptic in me is cautious that this is the type of reasoning which propels the anti-vax movement. I wish / hope the medical community will address stories like this before people lose trust in them entirely. How frequent are mis-diagnosis like this? How often is "user research" helping or hurting the process of getting good health outcome…

> the skeptic in me is cautious that this is the type of reasoning which propels the anti-vax movement

I think there's a difference between questioning your doctor, and questioning advice given by almost every doctor. There are plenty of bad doctors out there, or maybe just doctors who are bad fits for their patients. They don't always listen or pay close attention to your history. And in spite of their education they don't always choose the correct diagnosis.

I also think there's an ever-increasing difference between AI health research and old-school WebMD research.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#460

Post by smeej »

mcny wrote: post #444
jtbayly wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the ultimate answer is that people must take responsibility for their own health and that of their children and loved ones. That includes research and double-checking your doctors. True, the result is that a good number of people will be convinced they have something (eg. autism) that they don't. But the anecdotes are piled up into giant mountains at this point. A good number of people in my family have had a…

But we are idiots. There's a reason why flour has iron and salt has iodine, right? Individual responsibility simply does not scale.

Neither does collective responsibility, for the same reason, particularly in any sort of representative government. Or did you expect people to pause being idiots as soon as they stepped into the ballot box to choose the people they wanted to have collective responsibility?
Post reply on HN