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

501–510 of 677 posts

Re: ChatGPT Health

#501

Post by undeveloper »

lm28469 wrote: post #340
yurishimo wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the majority of those people are lying or do you think it's possible that our pursuit of algorithmic consumption is actually rewiring our neural pathways into something that looks/behaves more like ADHD? Personally, I'm on the fence. I suspect that I've always had a bit of that, but anecdotally, it does seem to have gotten worse in the past decade, but perhaps it's just a symptom of old age (31 hehehe).

Probably a bit of both, it's trendy do have a quirk, and modern life fucks up your attention span. Everyone wants to put a label on everything, remember when facebook had a dropdown of like 60+ genders? I also know people who talk about "being on the spectrum" all the time, at first I thought it was a meme, but they genuinely believe they're autistic because they're #notliketheothers. At the end of the day everything…

> attention span

The meme of 'ADHD as the "fucked up attention span disorder"' has done immeasurable damage to people, neurotypical and ADHD alike. it is the attribute that is the least important to my life, but most centered towards the neurotypical, or the other people it bothers.

> modern life fucks up your attention span

That said, this statement is true, it's just a fundamental misunderstanding of ADHD as "dog like instinct to go chase a squirrel" or whatever. Google is free, so is Chatgpt if that's too hard.

> I'm not sure it's healthy to want to put a label on everything

I don't particularly care for microlabeling, but it's usually harmless, nothing suggest the alternative of "just stop talking about your problems" is better. People create language usually because they want to label a shared idea. This is boomer talk (see "remember facebook?" no)

> or medicate to fall back on the baseline

I'm not sure "If you have ADHD you should simply suffer because medicine is le bad" is a great stance, but you're allowed I suppose

Re: ChatGPT Health

#502

Post by user_7832 »

Aurornis wrote: post #477
yurishimo wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the majority of those people are lying or do you think it's possible that our pursuit of algorithmic consumption is actually rewiring our neural pathways into something that looks/behaves more like ADHD? Personally, I'm on the fence. I suspect that I've always had a bit of that, but anecdotally, it does seem to have gotten worse in the past decade, but perhaps it's just a symptom of old age (31 hehehe).

> Do you think the majority of those people are lying I don’t think they’re lying, but it is very clear that ADHD has entered the common vernacular and is now used as a generic term like OCD. People will say “I’m OCD about…” as a way of saying they like to be organized or that they care about some detail. Now it’s common to say “My ADHD made me…” to refer to getting distracted or following an impulse. > or do you thi…

I generally and broadly agree with your comment.

> Focus is, and always has been, something that can be developed through practice. Ability to focus starts to decrease when you don’t practice it much.

> The talk about “rewiring the brain” and blaming algorithms is getting too abstract, in my opinion. You’re just developing bad habits and not investing time and energy into maintaining the good habits.

> If you choose to delete those apps from your phone ...

I would like to add that focus is one of the many aspects of adhd, and for many people, isn't even the biggest thing.

For many people, it's about the continuous noise in their mind. Brown noise or music can partly help with parts of that.

For many, it's about emotional responses. It's the difference between hearing your boss criticise you and getting heart palpitations while mentally thinking "Shit, I'm going to get fired again", vs "Ahh next time I'll take care of this specific aspect". (Googling "RSD ADHD" will give more info.)

It's the difference between wanting to go to the loo because you haven't peed in 6 hours but you can't pull yourself off your chair, and... pulling yourself off your chair.

Focus is definitely one aspect. But between the task positive network, norepinephrine and the non-focus aspects of dopamine (including - more strength! Less slouching, believe it or not!), there are a lot of differences.

Medications can help with many of these, albeit at the "risk" of tolerance.

(I agree this is a lot of detail and nuance for a random comment online, but I just felt it had to be said. Btw - all those examples... might've been from personal experience - without vs with meds.)

Re: ChatGPT Health

#503

Post by bethekidyouwant »

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…

Did you get the flu shot this year tho? Be honest.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#504

Post by Workaccount2 »

Gareth321 wrote: post #479
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 wish / hope the medical community will address stories like this before people lose trust in them entirely. Too late for me. I have a similar story. ChatGPT helped me diagnose an issue which I had been suffering with my whole life. I'm a new person now. GPs don't have the time to spend hours investigating symptoms for patients. ChatGPT can provide accurate diagnoses in seconds. These tools should be in wide use t…

The problem doctors have is that 99/100 times ABC is caused by xyz, so they prescribe 123 and the problem goes away.

Overtime, as a human, the doctors just turn into ABC -> 123 machines.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#505

Post by overgard »

I use it for health advice sometimes.. but.. doesn't this seem like a massive source of liability? Are they just assuming the investor dollars will pay for the lawyers?

Re: ChatGPT Health

#506

Post by spongebobstoes »

lunias wrote: post #455

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.

Doctors should use AI, but they often don't. We can expect slow adoption.

When it happens, the quality of AI will be determined by enterprise sales and IT.

Right now, a patient can inject AI into the system by bringing a ChatGPT transcript to their doctor.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#507

Post by ericd »

estearum wrote: post #497
nostrademons wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

> We are idiots who will bear the consequences of our own idiocy This is just factually not true. Healthy people subsidize the unhealthy (even those made unhealthy by their own idiocy) to a truly absurd degree.

Well, the biggest consequences aren't financial, they're losing your quality of life, or your life itself.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#508

Post by uyzstvqs »

alt227 wrote: post #485
uyzstvqs wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP sessions being around 20 minutes is pretty standard in North American and European countries. You can't have standard hour-long GP sessions, as it'd become impossible to make a timely appointment, no matter which system.

Ever wonder why famous people and celbrities always seem so healthy? They have unfettered access to well paid doctors. People with lots of money can spend literal days with GPs, constantly trying and testing things based on feedback loops with the same doctor at the same time. When people are forced to have a consultation, diagnosis, and treatment in 20 minutes, things are rushed and missed. Amazing things happen whe…

You make a good point, but the key here is that there are a lot less people with that kind of money. The lower volume of patients is why that's possible. There are a lot more people in the middle class. So sessions have to be limited to ensure everyone has fair, equal and timely access to a doctor.

And of course, GPs typically diagnose more common problems, and refer patients to specialists when needed. Specialists have a lower volume of patients, and are able to take more time with each person individually.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#509

Post by estearum »

ericd wrote: post #507
estearum wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are idiots who will bear the consequences of our own idiocy This is just factually not true. Healthy people subsidize the unhealthy (even those made unhealthy by their own idiocy) to a truly absurd degree.

Well, the biggest consequences aren't financial, they're losing your quality of life, or your life itself.

Sure?

Re: ChatGPT Health

#510

Post by uncletaco »

jtbayly wrote: post #489
glenstein wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But the anecdotes are piled up into giant mountains at this point This is disorganized thinking. Anecdotes about what? Does my uncle having an argument with his doctor over needing more painkillers, combine with an anecdote about my sister disagreeing with a midwife over how big her baby would be, combined with my friend outliving their stage 4 cancer prognosis all add up to "therefore I'm going to disregard nutriti…

You can tell me that I'm as crazy as people who believe they've been abducted, but I'm still going to be my own health advocate. :)

They’re not saying you’re crazy they’re saying you may be helplessly incompetent when it comes to interpreting social data. You probably aren’t a good reader either if crazy was your takeaway.
Post reply on HN