> I would. You would. I would've had no idea prior to reading this article. There seems to be real value in the LLM being able to probe with relevant diagnost

> I would. You would. I would've had no idea prior to reading this article. There seems to be real value in the LLM being able to probe with relevant diagnostic questions, then picking out "Your platelet count is alarmingly low. You should go to the ER urgently." from the three lab work panels uploaded. Even if I had properly gone through those results myself at that point (not a given, by the timing), the level of danger seems very easy to miss. > My point was that this isn't revolutionary/interesting [...] it wasn't required [...] The author torched a forest to figure out their issue when burning the paper mill would have done the trick. And you can do anything a computer can with sticks and sand. If an LLM is the best tool available (that isn't a given, but it does seem to have done well here) I don't see what makes it the equivalent to torching a forest. Its size? Energy usage? More capable than strictly necessary? Maybe factors I'd consider if designing, say, object detection for a low-powered doorbell camera - but not really things I'd worry about in what's potentially a medical emergency.