That's an interesting result. I would love to see a follow-up with two control groups: humans with assistance from an LLM, humans with assistance from a doctor

That's an interesting result. I would love to see a follow-up with two control groups: humans with assistance from an LLM, humans with assistance from a doctor and humans with no assistance. This study tells us that LLM assistance is as good as no assistance, but any investigation of the cause feels tainted by the fact that we don't know how much a human would have helped. If we believe the assertion that LLMs are on a similar level as doctors on finding the conditions on their own, does the issue appear in the description the humans give the LLM, the way the LLM talks to the human, or the way the human receives the LLM suggestions? When looking at chat transcripts they seem to identify issues with all three, but there isn't really a baseline on what we would consider "good" performance