ChatGPT Health

This is where their perspective comes from: https://www.thecollegefix.com/med-schools-still-accept-black...

This has been going on for 20 years: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1120616/

Black students (among other minorities) with unacceptable MCAT (as in, if another race had them they would be rejected) are accepted, at a rate 6-10x more likely to be admitted with similar scores. The motivation is that doctors should match the demographic they treat, and minority doctors are underrepresented, so should be accepted at higher rates: https://www.uclahealth.org/news/article/clinical-outcomes-pa...

The obvious outcome is that minorities students, being less prepared as measured by MCAT and somewhat setup for failure, have a much higher failure rate, with black students being 85% more likely to leave medical school than white: https://news.yale.edu/2023/07/31/black-md-phd-students-exper...

USMLE scores have been changed to pass/fail, to hide the actual score, to help prevent rejection of minority students who previously would have been rejected: https://n-age.org/wp-content/uploads/A-Test-of-Diversity-—-W... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00904...

The system was, as is the stated goal by all, setup to pass minority students that would have previously been rejected, at every step of them becoming a doctor, to provide a net positive for minority populations, since it's accepted that you'll get the best outcome if your doctor is the same race as you.

That's a pretty disingenuous take on what I said. To quote from the discussion I responded to:

>>>>>> Are you giving your vitals to Sam Altman just like that?

>>>>> Yes, if it will help me and others

>>>> 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)

>>> 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.

>> [explanation of why it might be worrisome]

> These points seem to be arguments against giving your health data to anybody, not just to an AI company.

I did not make any claims that it was useless; the context I was responding to was someone being dubious the there were risks after being asked whether they had any reason to assume that it would be beneficial to share specific info, and following that a conversation ensued about why it might make sense to err on the side of caution (independently of whether the company happens to be focused on AI).

To be explicit , I'm not taking a stance on whether the experiences cited elsewhere in the thread constitute sufficient evidence. My point isn't that there is no conceivable benefit, but that the baseline should be caution about sharing medical info, and then figuring out if there's enough of a reason to choose otherwise.

>No. The human body actually isn't a 737.

No shit sherlock.

>Let me spell it out then: The mechanisms by which a human body and a 737 work are so vastly different that one may as well be alien to the other. It's quite an apples and oranges comparison.

Should've done this in the first place because no one understands what you're saying otherwise.

The problem internals are different but we are comparing the outcome and that is: human lives. You seem to think this is an invalid comparison. It's not.

>Medicine isn't engineering. Treating patients isn't the same as the design and manufacture of aircraft.

I never said that. The whole point was you made the claim doctors are good problem solvers because they went to medical school.

I said that claim is utter bullshit. They aren't that good and they misdiagnose shit all the time. The point still stands and you delivered evidence to validate that. You said Medicine is fuzzy and engineering exact. You said the problem was vastly more complex as well.

All of this proves the point. The problem is harder, the science is fuzzy. Doctors armed with medical science, which is definitively worse, operating on a problem that is definitively harder will be generally WORSE problem solvers then people in other occupations IF we hold everything else the same. So doctors as a group ARE not good problem solvers. That WAS the point. We are referring to doctors as a group and thus the ONLY point of comparison for problem solvers ARE other occupations.

That's just a given and it follows from your OWN logic.

>That of course doesn't excuse shitty healthcare systems that can clearly do better when stats indicate there's preventable adverse outcomes happening. I just don't think laying the blame at the feet of doctors somehow being too stupid to problem solve is helpful when there's a larger system that's preventing them from doing their best work for their patients. If anything that narrative is counterproductive.

Did I lay the blame on doctors? No. I just said they aren't good problem solvers. That's a fact. That's not blame.

But let's be clear, I agree it's counter productive to lay blame OR call doctors stupid and such a thing WAS not done by me. I was simply making the claim that THEY are NOT good problem solvers. You inserted extra negative sentiment into the "narrative" as an hallucination by your own imagination.

Look, point is you're wrong on every count. Doctors are not good at problem solving period. They're pretty bad at it. The comparison with aviation engineers is apt because those guys are GOOD problem solvers.

And again, it's not the doctors fault that they are incompetent. It's the hardness of the problem and the limitations of the science that make them like this.

Ok, I might have been to hasty in commenting on your last recap. Your baseline is sound. In any case, we're talking about a medical help/ advice tool. If it's not providing any value, any interaction with it (let alone sharing medical data) is pointless and a waste of time. So I think any convincing argument against sharing private data with it should take in consideration at least a minimum of potentially missed valuable information. Otherwise it's an easy argument to make, but also an empty one.

In this case, I suspect that the classic biases of HN (pro-privacy and anti-ai) might interact to dismiss the value that can be provided by a specialized medical llm/ agent (despite indications that an unspecialised one is already helpful!) while rightly pointing out the risks of sharing sensitive data.