3 ms·
This seems like a false comparison because you are bringing up entirely different parts of the body. Most dangerous misunderstandings start from a grain of plau
by callalex 3y ago
This seems like a false comparison because you are bringing up entirely different parts of the body. Most dangerous misunderstandings start from a grain of plausible truth. For example, many people will choose a category of food/ingredient that causes every ailment known to man, and then cut out that ingredient from their diet. They will subsequently claim that skipping that ingredient changes their life, when in all likelihood the simple act of paying attention to where their food comes from and what went into it changes their consumption and behaviors in significant ways that have nothing to do with the bogeyman ingredient. They will then find a study that pumped 100g of said ingredient into a 200g mouse and point out all the negative effects that had which they are now avoiding.
- riedel 3y agoI guess chatgpt weights by empirical probability in text and not by studtly size or study design. Indeed it coming that pharma companies or other actors will invest in poisoning LLMs to better get already questionable treatments into the market and will spend less money inviting medical doctors into holiday resorts (my father was a medical doctor and it was a practice at least in the 80s with 'scientific' conferences back then)
- kenjackson 3y agoI choose something that was much different to see if ChatGPT would just take my cue and create a connection. The closer I get to something that is more plausible the more likely there actually might be an obscure, but actually valid and useful, connection. When ChatGPT 3.5 first became available I actually used it to diagnose an issue my father in law had that was missed by his surgeon and the ICU staff. Quite possibly saved his life. Finding these connections IMO is a plus and not a negative.