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

601–610 of 677 posts

Re: ChatGPT Health

#601

Post by threethirtytwo »

nradov wrote: post #583
threethirtytwo wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have got to be kidding me. No one on the face of the earth wants to pay a doctor for time. They want to pay for results. Nobody is going to pay thousands of dollars for shitty advice or treatments that can potentially kill you... are you kidding me? What human will happily dish out thousands of dollars just to give "time" to the doctor for wrong advice. That has got to be a joke. >If you want to pay for results o…

You seem to be unclear on the basics of how this works. There's no need for any new laws. If you want to negotiate a value-based care agreement with a healthcare provider instead of paying on a fee-for-service basis then you're free to do so. Existing laws allow for that. As for your absurd assertions about what every patient wants, you're just lying and making things up. Many patients (like me) don't want that or ha…

There's a need for law.

The fact nobody negotiates for results based treatment is similar to how everyone really needs insurance to afford medical treatments. It's not law to have medical insurance but basically everyone needs it regardless. The problem is systemic. It's not purely related to law. Side effects and incentives stemming both from law and outside of law force things to be this way.

Stop manipulating the conversation this way. You know what I mean. Any sane person pays for results, not for time and garbage results.

>As for your absurd assertions about what every patient wants, you're just lying and making things up. Many patients (like me) don't want that or have no strong preference at all. Your comparison to North Korea is just deranged and bears no relationship to objective reality.

No it's not a lie. It's obvious to anyone reading. I'm so confident about it that I'll even say you're lying about what you want.

You don't want to pay a doctor thousands of dollars for his time and wrong advice that can potentially kill you. No patient wants this. 800,000 patients per year die or are seriously injured from misdiagnosis. Every single one of those patients wants there money back. That is objectively reality. You're not stupid. You're not delusional. So you know this. At this point you're just arguing and lying.

>Your comparison to North Korea is just deranged and bears no relationship to objective reality.

800,000 patients injured/dead from misdiagnosis. 300,000k of that is deaths. That's equivalent to mass slaughter. One of these persons is my brother, imagine if it was yours.

It's not deranged. You're deranged for thinking it's NOT. The comparison is not only relevant as an analogy but relevant in degree of severity.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#602

Post by MattGrommes »

Not everyone who uses ChatGPT gets advice on harming or killing themselves, but some people sure do. And some act on it.

Just as we don't necessarily want to eliminate a technology because of a small percentage of bad cases, we shouldn't push a technology just because of a small percentage of good anecdotes.

This genie isn't going back in the bottle but I sure hope it ends up more useful than harmful. Which now that I write it down is kind of the motto of modern LLM companies.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#603

Post by ryandrake »

ctoth wrote: post #581
ryandrake wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Failure cases aren't just "patient died." They also include all the times where ChatGPT's "advice" aligned with their doctor's advice, and when ChatGPT's advice was just totally wrong and the patient correctly ignored it. Nobody knows how numerous these cases are.

So your failure cases are now "it agreed with the doctor" and "the patient correctly identified bad advice." Where's the failure?

These are failures to provide useful advice over and above what could be gotten from a professional. In the sense that ChatGPT is providing net-neutral (maybe slightly positive since it confirms the doctor's diagnosis) or net-negative benefits (in the case that it's just wasting the user's time with garbage).

Re: ChatGPT Health

#604

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

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.

But the effects aren't just financial, look in an ER. People who for one reason or another haven't been able to take care of themselves in the emergency room for things that aren't an emergency, and it means your standard of care is going to take a hit.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#605

Post by sib »

lionkor wrote: post #462

All the Americans here arguing why this is a good thing, how your system is so flawed, etc. remember that this will be accessible to people in countries with good, free healthcare. This is going to be the alternative to going to a doctor that is 10 minutes by car away, that is entirely and completely free, and who knows me, my history, and has a couple degrees. People are going to choose asking ChatGPT instead of the…

>> This is going to be the alternative to going to a doctor that is 10 minutes by car away, that is entirely and completely free, and who knows me, my history, and has a couple degrees.

Well then I suppose they'd have no need or motivation to use it, right?

Re: ChatGPT Health

#606

Post by junpfker »

cyberpunk wrote: post #90
midldei wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this is a 'cart before the horse' situation. What evidence do you have that providing your health information to this company will help you or anyone (other than those with financial interest in the company)? There is a very real, near definite, chance that giving your, and others', health data to this company will hurt you and others. Will you still hold this, "I personally don’t care who has access to my health…

I’m definitely a privacy fist person, but can you explain how health data could hurt you, besides obvious things like being discriminated against for insurance if you have a drug habit or whatever. Like, i’m a fitness conscious 30 something white male, what risk is there of my appendix operation being common knowledge or that i need more iron or something?

What if you were a woman seeking medical treatment for an ectopic pregnancy?

‘Being able to access people’s medical records is just another tool in law enforcement’s toolbox to prosecute people for stigmatized care'

They are already using the legal system in order to force their way into your medical records to prosecute you under their new 'anti-abortion' rulings.

https://pennsylvaniaindependent.com/reproductive_rights/texa...

Re: ChatGPT Health

#607

Post by nradov »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #593
nradov wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general your comment was false. You're just lying and making things up. There are lower-tier medical schools in California, Massachusetts, and most every other state. The state, whether it's Kansas or somewhere else, is almost totally irrelevant to the quality of physicians produced.

No I'm not. I'm referring to a specific bad school(s) in kansas. I never made a comment about Kansas itself. I never said the state is correlated with the quality of the doctor, or even if the quality of the school is associated with the quality of the doctor. You made that up. Which makes you the liar.

If you're referring to a specific school then name the school instead of making lame low-effort comments about a state.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#608

Post by nradov »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #601
nradov wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be unclear on the basics of how this works. There's no need for any new laws. If you want to negotiate a value-based care agreement with a healthcare provider instead of paying on a fee-for-service basis then you're free to do so. Existing laws allow for that. As for your absurd assertions about what every patient wants, you're just lying and making things up. Many patients (like me) don't want that or ha…

There's a need for law. The fact nobody negotiates for results based treatment is similar to how everyone really needs insurance to afford medical treatments. It's not law to have medical insurance but basically everyone needs it regardless. The problem is systemic. It's not purely related to law. Side effects and incentives stemming both from law and outside of law force things to be this way. Stop manipulating the…

You seem to be assuming that a different payment model would reduce diagnostic errors. There is no evidence for that. Anything related to biology is necessarily probabilistic and highly error prone. Some care quality improvements are certainly possible but those aren't necessarily tied to payment models. It's more important to focus on evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#609

Post by volkk »

encyclopedism wrote: post #472
steveridout wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human doctors are probabilistic systems.

This type of naive response really is bothersome! Humans are probabilistic systems?! You might want to inform the world's top neuroscientists and philosophers to down tools. They were STILL trying to figure this out but you've already solved it! Well done.

There's nothing naive about it. Most doctors work off of statistics and probabilities stemming from population based studies. Literally the entire field of medicine is probabilistic and that's what angers people. Yes, 95% chance you're not suffering from something horrible but a lot of people would want to continue diagnostics to rule out that 5% that you now have cancer and the doctor sent you home with antibiotics thinking it's just some infection, or whatever.

Re: ChatGPT Health

#610

Post by threethirtytwo »

nradov wrote: post #607
threethirtytwo wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I'm not. I'm referring to a specific bad school(s) in kansas. I never made a comment about Kansas itself. I never said the state is correlated with the quality of the doctor, or even if the quality of the school is associated with the quality of the doctor. You made that up. Which makes you the liar.

If you're referring to a specific school then name the school instead of making lame low-effort comments about a state.

>If you're referring to a specific school then name the school instead of making lame low-effort comments about a state.

You're fucking right. I should've named the specific school. (And I didn't make a comment about the state I made a comment about school(s) in the state which is not about all schools in the state.)

That's would I should do. What you should do is: Don't accuse me of lying and then lie yourself. Read the comment more carefully. Don't assume shit.

No point in continue this. We both get it and this thread is going nowhere.

Post reply on HN