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

61–70 of 677 posts

Re: ChatGPT Health

#61

Post by piva00 »

roger_ wrote: post #56
piva00 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I don’t know if I should be denied access because of those people. That's the majority of people though, if you really think that I assume you wouldn't have a problem with needing to be licenced to have this kind of access, right?

If they pepper it with warnings and add safe guards, then I'm fine. I think they can design it to minimize misinformation or at least blind trust.

People are very good at ignoring warnings, I see it all the time.

There's no way to design it to minimise misinformation, the "ground truth" problem of LLM alignment is still unsolved.

The only system we currently have to allow people to verify they know what they are doing is through licencing: you go to training, you are tested that you understand the training, and you are allowed to do the dangerous thing. Are you ok with needing this to be able to access a potentially dangerous tool for the untrained?

Re: ChatGPT Health

#63

Post by rafram »

paulgrimes1 wrote: post #41

Here’s something: my chatGPT quietly assumed I had ADHD for around 9 months, up until October 2025. I don’t suffer from ADHD. I only found out through an answer that began “As you have ADHD..” I had it stop right there, and asked it to tell me exactly where it got this information; the date, the title of the chat, the exact moment it took this data on as an attribute of mine. It was unable to specify any of it, aside…

> nine months previous

It likely just hallucinated the ADHD thing in this one chat and then made this up when you pushed it for an explanation. It has no way to connect memories to the exact chats they came from AFAIK.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#64

Post by theptip »

Integration with Function is a great use-case. There is a huge category of pre-diagnostic health questions (“Medicine 3.0” as Attia puts it) where personalization and detailed interpretation of results is important, yet insurance typically won’t cover preemptive treatment.

Not to mention that doctors generally don’t have time to explain everything. Recently I’ve been doing my own research and (important failsafe) running the conclusions by my doctor to validate. Tighter integration between physician notes, ChatGPT conversations, and ongoing biomarkers from e.g. function and Apple Health would make it possible to craft individualized health plans without requiring six-figure personal doctor subscriptions.

A great opportunity to improve the status quo here.

Of course - as with software, quality control will be the crux. We don’t want “vibe diagnosing”.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#65

Post by fnoef »

I’m kind of torn on this. From one side, I can’t seem to trust doctors any more. I recently had a tooth removed (by the advice of two different doctors), in a claim that it will resolve my pain, which it did not, and now 3 different doctors don’t know what’s causing my pain.

Most doctor advice boil down to drink some water and take a painkiller, while glancing for 15 seconds at my medical history before they dedicate me 7 minutes, after which they move to yet another patient.

So compared to this, AI that can analyze all my medical history, and has access to the entirety of medical researches that are publicly available, could be a very good tool to have.

But at the same time technofeudalism, dystopia, etc.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#66

Post by plasticeagle »

minimaxir wrote: post #4

> Health is designed to support, not replace, medical care. It is not intended for diagnosis or treatment. I suspect that will be legally-tested sooner than later.

It also doesn't make any sense. It's like self-driving cars that require you to pay attention at all times anyway.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#67

Post by crmd »

I would not trust a company with no path to profitability with my medical health records, because they are more likely to do something unethical and against my interests, like selling insights about me to other companies, out of desperation for new revenue streams.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#69

Post by glerk »

thisislife2 wrote: post #5

I pity the doctors who will now have to deal with such self-diagnosed "patients". Wonder if General Medicine doctors will see a drop in patient, as AI convinces you to see a specialist with its diagnosis?

I hope this puts at least some of the scam artists known as psychiatrists out of a job.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#70

Post by zsolt224 »

theptip wrote: post #64

Integration with Function is a great use-case. There is a huge category of pre-diagnostic health questions (“Medicine 3.0” as Attia puts it) where personalization and detailed interpretation of results is important, yet insurance typically won’t cover preemptive treatment. Not to mention that doctors generally don’t have time to explain everything. Recently I’ve been doing my own research and (important failsafe) run…

What you described already exists:

- for liver: https://www.longevity-tools.com/liver-function-interpreter - for insulin resistance: https://www.longevity-tools.com/glucose-metabolism-interpret...

etc

Post reply on HN