4 ms·

My first google - "dog anemia low platelet count increase wbc" - first result suggests the same, plus 3-4 more on the first page. I'm guessing about 1000x fast

My first google - "dog anemia low platelet count increase wbc" - first result suggests the same, plus 3-4 more on the first page. I'm guessing about 1000x faster than using ChatGPT. I think the real story here is how vulnerable many are to hype, and maybe even more so, how many are willing to ignore the obvious to cash in on the attention. We saw it with crypto, now it's AI's turn. Honestly I can't tell which had more annoying grifters.

zakkor1 4y ago
The point is, you got the phrase you Googled ("low platelet count increase wbc") from GPT4. I had no idea what the test results meant or how to interpret them. I was trying to do SOMETHING to improve my dog's chances, and ChatGPT was #1 most accessible tool I could use for this. Sure, if you know exactly what you want to google for, you can google it. But that requires you to interpret all the information and piece together a theory, whereas with GPT I just stated all the facts and received accurate (in this case) info back
- nwienert 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 4y ago
    > Sorry but "dog anemia" also suggests it on the first result, but enjoy gaining the cultish following you seek. Please don't be an asshole on HN, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. Being right (assuming you are) actually makes it worse. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- geraneum 4y ago
  That’s not the case. After going to the first vet, you can search for causes of anemia in dogs without uploading test results or giving any further details and the first hit is as good as GPT’s. I have seen some good use cases for GPT but this one in particular (the Tweet) is not a good example.
  - zakkor1 4y ago
    Sorry, but this is just not true. 1) She was already correctly diagnosed with the first issue (babesiosis), which causes anemia. 2) As a result of the babesiosis, she developed a secondary complication (immune disorder), which worsened the anemia. Note that this can also occur as a standalone disease, which is actually the google result you're getting. 3) You would have had to google "secondary complications causing anemia as a result of canine babesiosis", and at this point, google stops helping you. Not that I would have known to google that anyway.
    - nwienert 4y ago
      I searched "dog anemia" and got this as the first result: https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/anemia-in-dogs https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/anemia-in-dogs Right there on the page: IMHA. If you add just a couple keywords from the large input, you likewise get more direct IMHA results.
      - carabiner 4y ago
        It also lists cancer, parasites and a whole bunch of other stuff. As a guy who knows nothing about dogs, Chatgpt seemed to zero in on this 10x better than that very long VCA page.
        nwienert 4y ago
        ChatGPT lists multiple things too. Also this ignores my original comment where I just typed the keywords from the vet notes and got IMHA right on the first result. That'd be about 100x faster using Google.
    - geraneum 4y ago
      I’m afraid what’s happening here is what’s called “confirmation bias”. Here [1] it’s actually the author who rules that out himself based on prior knowledge and the fact that the situation didn’t get better after the first diagnosis and subsequent treatment. Looking for a secondary cause/explanation is what drives him to ask the question in the first place. GPT says here are some “general information on…”. [1] https://twitter.com/peakcooper/status/1639716836911489025?s=46 https://twitter.com/peakcooper/status/1639716836911489025?s=...
FreeHugs 4y ago
Even just "anemia in dogs" is sufficient. The first Google hit goes to a page that lists IMHA right away. I am sure LLMs already are helpful to do medical research. But this case seems not to be a great example to show their superiority to old fashioned googling.
- nwienert 4y ago
  Yea I actually gave the author the benefit of the doubt thinking it must be a really rare thing, but "dog anemia" works even better.
notimetorelax 4y ago
Here GPT helped analyze the result of this particular case and advised based on it. Of course, human could have done this, but this is where humans failed in this particular case. I see huge value in Chat GPT retaining the context while giving the answers.
- nwienert 4y ago
  Here GPT did about 1000x worse than Google.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
xaphod 4y ago
Oh you were able to google the exact thing after reading what it was? Great job!
- nwienert 4y ago
  I made my search from the input not the output.
izacus 4y ago
It's the exact same grifters if you take a look. They just moved to a new fad.

zakkor1 4y ago

The point is, you got the phrase you Googled ("low platelet count increase wbc") from GPT4. I had no idea what the test results meant or how to interpret them. I was trying to do SOMETHING to improve my dog's chances, and ChatGPT was #1 most accessible tool I could use for this. Sure, if you know exactly what you want to google for, you can google it. But that requires you to interpret all the information and piece together a theory, whereas with GPT I just stated all the facts and received accurate (in this case) info back

nwienert 4y ago
[flagged]
- dang 4y ago
  > Sorry but "dog anemia" also suggests it on the first result, but enjoy gaining the cultish following you seek. Please don't be an asshole on HN, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. Being right (assuming you are) actually makes it worse. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
geraneum 4y ago
That’s not the case. After going to the first vet, you can search for causes of anemia in dogs without uploading test results or giving any further details and the first hit is as good as GPT’s. I have seen some good use cases for GPT but this one in particular (the Tweet) is not a good example.
- zakkor1 4y ago
  Sorry, but this is just not true. 1) She was already correctly diagnosed with the first issue (babesiosis), which causes anemia. 2) As a result of the babesiosis, she developed a secondary complication (immune disorder), which worsened the anemia. Note that this can also occur as a standalone disease, which is actually the google result you're getting. 3) You would have had to google "secondary complications causing anemia as a result of canine babesiosis", and at this point, google stops helping you. Not that I would have known to google that anyway.
  - nwienert 4y ago
    I searched "dog anemia" and got this as the first result: https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/anemia-in-dogs https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/anemia-in-dogs Right there on the page: IMHA. If you add just a couple keywords from the large input, you likewise get more direct IMHA results.
    - carabiner 4y ago
      It also lists cancer, parasites and a whole bunch of other stuff. As a guy who knows nothing about dogs, Chatgpt seemed to zero in on this 10x better than that very long VCA page.
      - nwienert 4y ago
        ChatGPT lists multiple things too. Also this ignores my original comment where I just typed the keywords from the vet notes and got IMHA right on the first result. That'd be about 100x faster using Google.
  - geraneum 4y ago
    I’m afraid what’s happening here is what’s called “confirmation bias”. Here [1] it’s actually the author who rules that out himself based on prior knowledge and the fact that the situation didn’t get better after the first diagnosis and subsequent treatment. Looking for a secondary cause/explanation is what drives him to ask the question in the first place. GPT says here are some “general information on…”. [1] https://twitter.com/peakcooper/status/1639716836911489025?s=46 https://twitter.com/peakcooper/status/1639716836911489025?s=...

FreeHugs 4y ago

Even just "anemia in dogs" is sufficient. The first Google hit goes to a page that lists IMHA right away. I am sure LLMs already are helpful to do medical research. But this case seems not to be a great example to show their superiority to old fashioned googling.

nwienert 4y ago
Yea I actually gave the author the benefit of the doubt thinking it must be a really rare thing, but "dog anemia" works even better.

notimetorelax 4y ago

Here GPT helped analyze the result of this particular case and advised based on it. Of course, human could have done this, but this is where humans failed in this particular case. I see huge value in Chat GPT retaining the context while giving the answers.

nwienert 4y ago
Here GPT did about 1000x worse than Google.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

xaphod 4y ago

Oh you were able to google the exact thing after reading what it was? Great job!

nwienert 4y ago
I made my search from the input not the output.

izacus 4y ago

It's the exact same grifters if you take a look. They just moved to a new fad.