4 ms·

Will there be a Dr House (is there a more current TV doctor) video version which the family can interact with which would make them feel like they are getting t

Will there be a Dr House (is there a more current TV doctor) video version which the family can interact with which would make them feel like they are getting the best care in the world from a famous doctor? But also, if ChatGPT has a 50% chance of giving the wrong diagnosis, can you trust it more than 50% to give the correct reasoning to the family as to the activity of the medical staff?

weaksauce 3y ago
no, you still have to read it. > In each case, the output from the hungover intern/ChatGPT needs to be carefully checked before it’s used. But in these scenarios, reviewing existing work is usually much faster than starting from scratch.
tazjin 3y ago
> if ChatGPT has a 50% chance of giving the wrong diagnosis It depends on the average chance of the doctor giving the wrong diagnosies (I honestly have no idea?!)
- OJFord 3y ago
  My experience is second-hand, but they seem to be pretty split between seeing exciting rare diagnoses everywhere (students, juniors primarily, or one's own particular research interest) and biased against them, it's ~never that, it's the same boring thing we saw ten of yesterday (jaded specialists primarily).
- EA-3167 3y ago
  There are different figures, partly as a result of how this question is studied. The Mayo Clinic did a famous study on people who sought a second opinion, and they found that something like 12% of people seeking that second opinion were correctly diagnosed. Obviously this isn't a fair sample since this is not only people seeking a second opinion, but one from a prestigious source. This narrative review discusses the issue from a global perspective, concluding that most people will experience at least one misdiagnosis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5502242/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5502242/ Article on Mayo study, with link to study: https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-researchers-demonstrate-value-of-second-opinions/ https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-re...
  - einpoklum 3y ago
    Isn't seeking a second opinion something you usually do when the first opinion sounds fishy, doesn't seem to match the evidence, or when the doctor giving doesn't seem to be doing his job seriously (e.g. dismissive, preoccupied etc)? Or in cases where it is known to be a difficult situation which makes you think multiple diagnoses are needed?
lockhouse 3y ago
There are a number of medical conditions that could be diagnosed very easily by some lab results, ChatGPT, and a deep fake.
givemeethekeys 3y ago
"Trust but verify". If you can't verify, then don't trust. I've used ChatGPT for short scripts. I can read and test-run scripts to verify their correctness. On the other hand, asking it to do more complex programming is error-prone.
- Madmallard 3y ago
  If you have to verify then there is no trust. That's not how trust works. I never liked the phrase.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    The world exists in a state of probability, it is rarely black and white.
  - justin_oaks 3y ago
    I agree. I've never liked the phrase either. Even so, I'll take "Trust but verify" as a shorthand for "Accept the output of a somewhat untrustworthy person/process, but verify the output before making use of it." Sometimes a short, inaccurate phrase wins out over the longer, accurate version.
    - Madmallard 3y ago
      I would change "accept" to "consider" in your rephrasing.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      There are bad and good uses of that phrase. I like the reading that goes "trust the intentions and skills of the other person, but recognize they're only human and can make mistakes, so if the thing is high-stakes, double-check anyway".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

weaksauce 3y ago

no, you still have to read it. > In each case, the output from the hungover intern/ChatGPT needs to be carefully checked before it’s used. But in these scenarios, reviewing existing work is usually much faster than starting from scratch.

tazjin 3y ago

> if ChatGPT has a 50% chance of giving the wrong diagnosis It depends on the average chance of the doctor giving the wrong diagnosies (I honestly have no idea?!)

OJFord 3y ago
My experience is second-hand, but they seem to be pretty split between seeing exciting rare diagnoses everywhere (students, juniors primarily, or one's own particular research interest) and biased against them, it's ~never that, it's the same boring thing we saw ten of yesterday (jaded specialists primarily).
EA-3167 3y ago
There are different figures, partly as a result of how this question is studied. The Mayo Clinic did a famous study on people who sought a second opinion, and they found that something like 12% of people seeking that second opinion were correctly diagnosed. Obviously this isn't a fair sample since this is not only people seeking a second opinion, but one from a prestigious source. This narrative review discusses the issue from a global perspective, concluding that most people will experience at least one misdiagnosis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5502242/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5502242/ Article on Mayo study, with link to study: https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-researchers-demonstrate-value-of-second-opinions/ https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-re...
- einpoklum 3y ago
  Isn't seeking a second opinion something you usually do when the first opinion sounds fishy, doesn't seem to match the evidence, or when the doctor giving doesn't seem to be doing his job seriously (e.g. dismissive, preoccupied etc)? Or in cases where it is known to be a difficult situation which makes you think multiple diagnoses are needed?

lockhouse 3y ago

There are a number of medical conditions that could be diagnosed very easily by some lab results, ChatGPT, and a deep fake.

givemeethekeys 3y ago

"Trust but verify". If you can't verify, then don't trust. I've used ChatGPT for short scripts. I can read and test-run scripts to verify their correctness. On the other hand, asking it to do more complex programming is error-prone.

Madmallard 3y ago
If you have to verify then there is no trust. That's not how trust works. I never liked the phrase.
- pixl97 3y ago
  The world exists in a state of probability, it is rarely black and white.
- justin_oaks 3y ago
  I agree. I've never liked the phrase either. Even so, I'll take "Trust but verify" as a shorthand for "Accept the output of a somewhat untrustworthy person/process, but verify the output before making use of it." Sometimes a short, inaccurate phrase wins out over the longer, accurate version.
  - Madmallard 3y ago
    I would change "accept" to "consider" in your rephrasing.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    There are bad and good uses of that phrase. I like the reading that goes "trust the intentions and skills of the other person, but recognize they're only human and can make mistakes, so if the thing is high-stakes, double-check anyway".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]