4 ms·

Even if that paper hadn't said >>>"We are therefore very cautious to extrapolate our findings toward any implications about the LLM’s utility as a standalone di

Even if that paper hadn't said >>>"We are therefore very cautious to extrapolate our findings toward any implications about the LLM’s utility as a standalone diagnostic tool" Your post would be a extraordinary claim and need extraordinary evidence, not a specific study of a specific scenario.

atleastoptimal 3y ago
there already is extraordinary evidence of GPT-4's superhuman diagnostic abilities. One anecdotal example is this: https://www.today.com/health/mom-chatgpt-diagnosis-pain-rcna101843 https://www.today.com/health/mom-chatgpt-diagnosis-pain-rcna... Another study regarding GPT-4 beating human experts: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.20.23288859v2.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.20.23288859v... Lots of data is pointing to the same conclusion: GPT-4 is at least as good if not better than human experts in medical diagnosis, at least in the areas studied. Thus the probability of a correct diagnosis is higher, thus safer, with GPT-4 than with any individual human expert.
- staticman2 3y ago
  This is so silly, the one study you linked to says that GPT 4 may have been trained on the answers to the test they gave it. So smart. And since GPT 4 can't examine a patient's body the claim it's better at diagnosis that a human doctor seems like such a wacky thing to search the internet for "studies" to prove in the first place.
  - atleastoptimal 3y ago
    A nurse can examine a patient's body. Medical tools can and report their diagnostics with high precision. GPT-4 is multi-modal. I feel you are nitpicking because you don't like the idea of an LLM being better than a human expert. Even if they weren't better than doctors nowadays, the chance they won't be in 1-2 years is tiny.
    - staticman2 3y ago
      What I'm doing isn't nitpicking. I don't know the point of linking to studies is when you draw conclusions that have nothing to do with the study. I just watched a video saying people are confused about what these models can do because 1) tech companies don't tend to say what they can do and leave users to figure it out. And 2) Tech enthusiasts tend to exaggerate what they can do. In your case I'm sure ChatGPT itself will tell you your comments are wrong- but for tech enthusiasts like yourself the AI is only wrong when it tells you it isn't all knowing, apparently. It's like the bit in Monty Python's Life of Brian where the protagonist says he's not the messiah and a woman shouts "Only the true messiah would deny his divinity!"

atleastoptimal 3y ago

there already is extraordinary evidence of GPT-4's superhuman diagnostic abilities. One anecdotal example is this: https://www.today.com/health/mom-chatgpt-diagnosis-pain-rcna101843 https://www.today.com/health/mom-chatgpt-diagnosis-pain-rcna... Another study regarding GPT-4 beating human experts: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.20.23288859v2.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.20.23288859v... Lots of data is pointing to the same conclusion: GPT-4 is at least as good if not better than human experts in medical diagnosis, at least in the areas studied. Thus the probability of a correct diagnosis is higher, thus safer, with GPT-4 than with any individual human expert.

staticman2 3y ago
This is so silly, the one study you linked to says that GPT 4 may have been trained on the answers to the test they gave it. So smart. And since GPT 4 can't examine a patient's body the claim it's better at diagnosis that a human doctor seems like such a wacky thing to search the internet for "studies" to prove in the first place.
- atleastoptimal 3y ago
  A nurse can examine a patient's body. Medical tools can and report their diagnostics with high precision. GPT-4 is multi-modal. I feel you are nitpicking because you don't like the idea of an LLM being better than a human expert. Even if they weren't better than doctors nowadays, the chance they won't be in 1-2 years is tiny.
  - staticman2 3y ago
    What I'm doing isn't nitpicking. I don't know the point of linking to studies is when you draw conclusions that have nothing to do with the study. I just watched a video saying people are confused about what these models can do because 1) tech companies don't tend to say what they can do and leave users to figure it out. And 2) Tech enthusiasts tend to exaggerate what they can do. In your case I'm sure ChatGPT itself will tell you your comments are wrong- but for tech enthusiasts like yourself the AI is only wrong when it tells you it isn't all knowing, apparently. It's like the bit in Monty Python's Life of Brian where the protagonist says he's not the messiah and a woman shouts "Only the true messiah would deny his divinity!"