3 ms·

How about the other cases that ChatGPT misdiagnosed? We don't see them on media because, you know...

corethree 3y ago
We don't see it because chatgpt is garbage in terms of reliability. This article is on the media because Doctors claim they're good and effective. But when a unreliable product beats doctors it turns their claim on it's head. This article isn't saying anything about chatGPT we don't already know. It's saying something damning about doctors.
- rafaelero 3y ago
  According to this study, they are as reliable as doctors (for ED's context)[1]. Also, Google has developed Med-PaLM 2, which they also say matches human doctors. So yeah, they may be unreliable. But they are as unreliable as humans. [1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019606442300642X?dgcid=author#fig1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019606442...
  - corethree 3y ago
    I wouldn't bet on that study. ChatGPT hallucinates. It can beat doctors but at the same time deliberately present wrong information. Doctors at least make a best effort.
    - rafaelero 3y ago
      I don't care about best effort. I care about getting the correct diagnosis. GPT-4 can already offer insightful information, even if it's just by augmenting the doctors diagnosis efforts. Not using it is just dumb.
      - corethree 3y ago
        I hate doctors but at the same time you have to look at reality. Not every decision needs to be data driven, the qualitative aspects of hallucinations are very real and should not be ignored. I'm sure you know the hallucinations that pop out of chatGPT can get wild. Definitely use it, but do so with caution.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      > Doctors at least make a best effort. lol. Just skim the CFS thread for counterexamples
      - corethree 3y ago
        Eh best effort in terms of not killing you and harming you too much... that's what I meant. For chatGPT hallucinations, anything goes, you know that machine has no boundaries so that has to be taken into account.
  - rvz 3y ago
    > But they are as unreliable as humans. Humans can be held to account by other humans if investigations are necessary to explain their own decisions transparently. LLMs such as Med-PaLM, ChatGPT, and fundamentally all LLMs are non-deterministic and are unpredictable in whatever they give as their output, which is much more unreliable and cannot reason or explain themselves transparently why they decide to output their responses, but shuffle and reword their sentences randomly to make themselves appear coherent to the untrained eye, but when scrutinised by a professional, it is mostly garbage. You would not seriously trust an AI to pilot a plane end to end without any human pilots on board or a FSD system to drive you from A to B whilst you sit at the back seat.
    - rafaelero 3y ago
      > You would not seriously trust an AI to pilot a plane end to end without any human pilots on board or a FSD system to drive you from A to B whilst you sit at the back seat. Well, people are doing exactly that with Waymo and Cruise, but with cars.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      > You would not seriously trust... a FSD system to drive you from A to B whilst you sit at the back seat. You might not, but I took a Cruise just the other day to a friend's house. Didn't even die or get into any accidents! (San Francisco)
iopq 3y ago
She went to 17 doctors that misdiagnosed the cause, so my question is: how about the doctors that can't find the right cause of the pain? You seem to be giving them a free pass
rvz 3y ago
Exactly. We know that the AI bros won't tell us that, since it spoils their narrative. For each guess in its diagnosis that is correct, there are around 1,000 incorrect suggestions that it makes, hence why it is untrustworthy in its diagnosis and for every answer it gives it lacks transparent reasoning, making it close to dangerous to rely on for medical advice.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> How about the other cases that ChatGPT misdiagnosed? She didn't consult ChatGPT and then start feeding her kid Tide pods. She took the diagnosis to a doctor. This is fine. This is productive. One could argue it wastes doctors' time, but in this case, it clearly didn't; our traditional random-search system did.

We don't see it because chatgpt is garbage in terms of reliability. This article is on the media because Doctors claim they're good and effective. But when a unreliable product beats doctors it turns their claim on it's head. This article isn't saying anything about chatGPT we don't already know. It's saying something damning about doctors.

rafaelero 3y ago
According to this study, they are as reliable as doctors (for ED's context)[1]. Also, Google has developed Med-PaLM 2, which they also say matches human doctors. So yeah, they may be unreliable. But they are as unreliable as humans. [1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019606442300642X?dgcid=author#fig1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019606442...
- corethree 3y ago
  I wouldn't bet on that study. ChatGPT hallucinates. It can beat doctors but at the same time deliberately present wrong information. Doctors at least make a best effort.
  - rafaelero 3y ago
    I don't care about best effort. I care about getting the correct diagnosis. GPT-4 can already offer insightful information, even if it's just by augmenting the doctors diagnosis efforts. Not using it is just dumb.
    - corethree 3y ago
      I hate doctors but at the same time you have to look at reality. Not every decision needs to be data driven, the qualitative aspects of hallucinations are very real and should not be ignored. I'm sure you know the hallucinations that pop out of chatGPT can get wild. Definitely use it, but do so with caution.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    > Doctors at least make a best effort. lol. Just skim the CFS thread for counterexamples
    - corethree 3y ago
      Eh best effort in terms of not killing you and harming you too much... that's what I meant. For chatGPT hallucinations, anything goes, you know that machine has no boundaries so that has to be taken into account.
- rvz 3y ago
  > But they are as unreliable as humans. Humans can be held to account by other humans if investigations are necessary to explain their own decisions transparently. LLMs such as Med-PaLM, ChatGPT, and fundamentally all LLMs are non-deterministic and are unpredictable in whatever they give as their output, which is much more unreliable and cannot reason or explain themselves transparently why they decide to output their responses, but shuffle and reword their sentences randomly to make themselves appear coherent to the untrained eye, but when scrutinised by a professional, it is mostly garbage. You would not seriously trust an AI to pilot a plane end to end without any human pilots on board or a FSD system to drive you from A to B whilst you sit at the back seat.
  - rafaelero 3y ago
    > You would not seriously trust an AI to pilot a plane end to end without any human pilots on board or a FSD system to drive you from A to B whilst you sit at the back seat. Well, people are doing exactly that with Waymo and Cruise, but with cars.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    > You would not seriously trust... a FSD system to drive you from A to B whilst you sit at the back seat. You might not, but I took a Cruise just the other day to a friend's house. Didn't even die or get into any accidents! (San Francisco)

iopq 3y ago

She went to 17 doctors that misdiagnosed the cause, so my question is: how about the doctors that can't find the right cause of the pain? You seem to be giving them a free pass

rvz 3y ago

Exactly. We know that the AI bros won't tell us that, since it spoils their narrative. For each guess in its diagnosis that is correct, there are around 1,000 incorrect suggestions that it makes, hence why it is untrustworthy in its diagnosis and for every answer it gives it lacks transparent reasoning, making it close to dangerous to rely on for medical advice.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> How about the other cases that ChatGPT misdiagnosed? She didn't consult ChatGPT and then start feeding her kid Tide pods. She took the diagnosis to a doctor. This is fine. This is productive. One could argue it wastes doctors' time, but in this case, it clearly didn't; our traditional random-search system did.