6 ms·

> Again, you're continuing to compare apples and oranges from different professions and applying it here which it is nonsensical. The unpredictable behaviour of

> Again, you're continuing to compare apples and oranges from different professions and applying it here which it is nonsensical. The unpredictable behaviour of LLMs like ChatGPT tells us that not only it is non-deterministic but it cannot be trusted at all and in that context, it always requires humans to check it and for the case of how reliable it is it needs much more experiments and scientific methods by others to attest that. Where's the science on this I need reams and reams of hard data and several scientific papers to prove this because nothing exists in reality until there's a scientific papers written about it. No I'm kidding don't actually give me science on this. Everything you said is a conclusion easily arrived at with just intuition, experience and common sense. You violate your own principles everytime you make a statement without a citation to a rigorous long winded scientific paper. You realize witnesses are non deterministic too? Yet a judge only needs one to convict a murderer. Non determinism doesn't mean jack in this Convo. You talk about medical professionals laughing in my face do you mean the 17 professionals mentioned in the article who for 10 years failed to diagnose a simple issue? You think anybody cares for them laughing? >What does Einstein speculating his equations have to do with showing how an AI system that is non-deterministic is also reliable? There are different methods in showing this reliability as I have explained already and you bringing that up is an irrelevant distraction. It's relevant. You're just excited thinking the conversation is going in some strange direction of ultimate statistical rigor as the only valid topic of conversation. I bring up Einstein to show you we can talk about well believed and highly esteemed topics that have zero statistical verification and it is valid from the standpoint of scientists and "professionals". I'm saying we don't need that level of rigor to talk about things that involve common sense. Science has weaknesses. The first aspect of it that's weak is it's fucking slow and expensive. The second thing is that a fundamental point of science is that nothing can proven to be true. Statistics does not have the ability for proving anything. In the end you're still speculating with science. >The entire point IS conclusively showing reliability which you using ONE paper with a low sample size you used for that as the basis of that claim is laughably insufficient for clinicians to draw an overall conclusion to show how ChatGPT is more reliable than doctors to the point where it is safe for medical advice or completely replacing doctors (which isn't going to happen anyway). And I'm saying your entire point is wrong. My point is right. You need to follow my point which is this: I can come to very real real conclusions about chatGPT and about LLMs without the need of resorting to science and statistical samples to verify statements in the same way you can make conclusions about your mom and her status as an intelligent being. Also I never said chatGPT is overall more reliable then doctors. I think of it as the precursor to the thing that will replace them. That's a highly reasonable speculation that can be made with zero science needed. The anecdotal data of 17 doctors failing here is valid supporting evidence for that speculation.

rvz 3y ago
> Where's the science on this I need reams and reams of hard data and several scientific papers to prove this because nothing exists in reality until there's a scientific papers written about it. You tell me, since I've already asked you to find another paper with a larger sample size, yet clearly you're struggling again to find one after judging paper you used by its headline than actually reading it and its limitations. > No I'm kidding don't actually give me science on this. Everything you said is a conclusion easily arrived at with just intuition, experience and common sense. You violate your own principles everytime you make a statement without a citation to a rigorous long winded scientific paper. Perhaps you need to search as to what the whole point of explainability is in LLMs and why clinicians and physicians refer to these systems as untrustworthy black-box systems who's output cannot be trusted and still needs human medical professionals to check its output. > You realize witnesses are non deterministic too? Yet a judge only needs one to convict a murderer. Non determinism doesn't mean jack in this Convo. Except that the difference is humans can be held to account and transparently explain themselves when something goes wrong. An AI cannot explain transparently reason nor explain itself other than repeat and reword its own response and can't figure out it's own errors even when you point it out. Non-determinism in LLMs is completely relevant due to the opaqueness as to how LLMs do their decision-making. Hence that, given an AI misdiagnoses a patient and lacks the transparent reasoning to show why it is wrong, then tells us it is untrustworthy to clinicians. Showing that 17 doctors couldn't diagnose a patient and ChatGPT could in ONE case does not mean it is 'reliable'. Clinicians are interested in larger sample sizes in trials before making a judgement in the overall error rate and reliability in how effective a medical device is. Everything beyond what you said mentioned is irrelevant. > You talk about medical professionals laughing in my face do you mean the 17 professionals mentioned in the article who for 10 years failed to diagnose a simple issue? You think anybody cares for them laughing? I'm still laughing at you for showing ONE clinical example and you proclaiming that as conclusive proof that LLMs can be used for medical advice and to completely replace all doctors. You realize that they can give the incorrect diagnosis at random? The still unanswered question is how effective it is over a large amount of cases and a sample size. i.e trials. Not one. > Science has weaknesses. The first aspect of it that's weak is it's fucking slow and expensive. The second thing is that a fundamental point of science is that nothing can proven to be true. Statistics does not have the ability for proving anything. In the end you're still speculating with science. Once again, as you have admitted already, one anecdote does not show that something is reliable. The point as which medical trials exist to test how reliable a system is, instead of releasing something that has been untested over a single paper which you seem to believe should happen, because of your own assumptions. > And I'm saying your entire point is wrong. My point is right. You need to follow my point which is this: Nope. You believe your opinion is 'right' over ONE anecdote and a single study which scratches the surface. Where as since from the beginning of deep neural networks which LLMs are based on, they fundamentally are black box systems and clinicians using them for diagnosis is unexplainable to them and showing those distant examples is unconvincing to them. Again, what about the number of cases over a larger sample size which it shows the incorrect diagnosis than the correct diagnosis? Do you not realize why ChatGPT and others have a disclaimer that it CANNOT be used for giving medical advice? > Also I never said chatGPT is overall more reliable then doctors. I think of it as the precursor to the thing that will replace them. That's a highly reasonable speculation that can be made with zero science needed. Given an LLM frequently hallucinates and is a opaque system, they will always need human doctors to check that their decisions are not incorrect. Fully replacing doctors with opaque AI systems with that fact, is a wild speculation and even it one happens, people will trust humans more than an unattended AI system or a hypothetical AI-only system which no-one is held to account when the AI makes a mistake. > The anecdotal data of 17 doctors failing here is valid supporting evidence for that speculation. One case study of ChatGPT getting 1 diagnosis right does not tell us how reliable it is against a larger sample size, many other cases where it got its diagnosis incorrect on a larger scale which clinicians are looking for to show its effectiveness.

rvz 3y ago

> Where's the science on this I need reams and reams of hard data and several scientific papers to prove this because nothing exists in reality until there's a scientific papers written about it. You tell me, since I've already asked you to find another paper with a larger sample size, yet clearly you're struggling again to find one after judging paper you used by its headline than actually reading it and its limitations. > No I'm kidding don't actually give me science on this. Everything you said is a conclusion easily arrived at with just intuition, experience and common sense. You violate your own principles everytime you make a statement without a citation to a rigorous long winded scientific paper. Perhaps you need to search as to what the whole point of explainability is in LLMs and why clinicians and physicians refer to these systems as untrustworthy black-box systems who's output cannot be trusted and still needs human medical professionals to check its output. > You realize witnesses are non deterministic too? Yet a judge only needs one to convict a murderer. Non determinism doesn't mean jack in this Convo. Except that the difference is humans can be held to account and transparently explain themselves when something goes wrong. An AI cannot explain transparently reason nor explain itself other than repeat and reword its own response and can't figure out it's own errors even when you point it out. Non-determinism in LLMs is completely relevant due to the opaqueness as to how LLMs do their decision-making. Hence that, given an AI misdiagnoses a patient and lacks the transparent reasoning to show why it is wrong, then tells us it is untrustworthy to clinicians. Showing that 17 doctors couldn't diagnose a patient and ChatGPT could in ONE case does not mean it is 'reliable'. Clinicians are interested in larger sample sizes in trials before making a judgement in the overall error rate and reliability in how effective a medical device is. Everything beyond what you said mentioned is irrelevant. > You talk about medical professionals laughing in my face do you mean the 17 professionals mentioned in the article who for 10 years failed to diagnose a simple issue? You think anybody cares for them laughing? I'm still laughing at you for showing ONE clinical example and you proclaiming that as conclusive proof that LLMs can be used for medical advice and to completely replace all doctors. You realize that they can give the incorrect diagnosis at random? The still unanswered question is how effective it is over a large amount of cases and a sample size. i.e trials. Not one. > Science has weaknesses. The first aspect of it that's weak is it's fucking slow and expensive. The second thing is that a fundamental point of science is that nothing can proven to be true. Statistics does not have the ability for proving anything. In the end you're still speculating with science. Once again, as you have admitted already, one anecdote does not show that something is reliable. The point as which medical trials exist to test how reliable a system is, instead of releasing something that has been untested over a single paper which you seem to believe should happen, because of your own assumptions. > And I'm saying your entire point is wrong. My point is right. You need to follow my point which is this: Nope. You believe your opinion is 'right' over ONE anecdote and a single study which scratches the surface. Where as since from the beginning of deep neural networks which LLMs are based on, they fundamentally are black box systems and clinicians using them for diagnosis is unexplainable to them and showing those distant examples is unconvincing to them. Again, what about the number of cases over a larger sample size which it shows the incorrect diagnosis than the correct diagnosis? Do you not realize why ChatGPT and others have a disclaimer that it CANNOT be used for giving medical advice? > Also I never said chatGPT is overall more reliable then doctors. I think of it as the precursor to the thing that will replace them. That's a highly reasonable speculation that can be made with zero science needed. Given an LLM frequently hallucinates and is a opaque system, they will always need human doctors to check that their decisions are not incorrect. Fully replacing doctors with opaque AI systems with that fact, is a wild speculation and even it one happens, people will trust humans more than an unattended AI system or a hypothetical AI-only system which no-one is held to account when the AI makes a mistake. > The anecdotal data of 17 doctors failing here is valid supporting evidence for that speculation. One case study of ChatGPT getting 1 diagnosis right does not tell us how reliable it is against a larger sample size, many other cases where it got its diagnosis incorrect on a larger scale which clinicians are looking for to show its effectiveness.