4 ms·

ChatGPT Sent Me to the ER

23 points by tedsanders 1y ago

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
boopity2025 1y ago
[dead]
- zahlman 1y ago
  > AI had carotid dissection in mind from the first message This does not follow from the evidence presented, even if we disregard questions of what "mind" means in this context. It's entirely plausible that the possibility of carotid dissection only made sense to consider partway through the conversation.
  - mcphage 1y ago
    I agree about the issue of “mind”, but the rest is mentioned directly in the article: > When I scrolled to the top of the chat where I’d first reported my neck pain, I saw that ChatGPT had mentioned a possible carotid dissection in its very first response to me. It started as a low probability guess that increased in certainty as my symptoms progressed. I find it striking that it was considering that possibility from my very first message.
anovikov 1y ago
[flagged]
- zahlman 1y ago
  It's late night in North America; you said this less than an hour after the post went up; and plenty of posts get little traction on HN (including submissions of links that later become very popular on a separate submission or from the curated "second chance" queue).
mwetzler 1y ago
my dad has a similar story. the voice of reason can be very helpful for people who take pride in telling themselves “it’s fine”. thanks Chat!
zahlman 1y ago
This title is clickbait. The implication ("following ChatGPT advice caused an emergency requiring an ER visit") is nearly the opposite of the central claim made ("ChatGPT encouraged me to go to the ER, and it turned out to be a life-saving decision").
- wiseowise 1y ago
  That’s your interpretation. When I read the title I thought about positive case [ChatGPT saved my life], not the negative one.
  - weikju 1y ago
    Same here. It's very similar to a lot of the "Apple Watch saved my life" stories/headlines.
  - mrjay42 1y ago
    Asking about the logic here: this is a form of fallacy...kinda? His "interpretation" or guess, wasn't worse or better than yours. Therefore, his statement about a misleading title is not invalidated because you guessed in the opposite direction. Let's say Hypothesis 1 Article is negative (ChatGPT gave bad medical advice and that led to the E.R.) Then * His guess -> is correct * Your guess -> is wrong Hypothesis 2 Article is positive Then * His guess -> is wrong * Your guess -> is correct Conclusion: In any case you had NO way to know beforehand So, in what ways pointing out that this is "his interpretation" invalidates anything he said? Of course, it is his guess and based on the title alone, it's at least an equally valid guess as yours. I say "at least", because it's not unreasonable to think that an LLM might have hallucinated some medical advice and that could lead someone to have an unhealthy practice which led them to the E.R.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > That’s your interpretation. It's the ordinary understanding of the idiom.
hn_throw2025 1y ago
I can add to this. About a month ago, a friend had abdominal pains but was reluctant to go to A&E (Emergency Room). I had my suspicions, but checked them with ChatGPT. The LLM said it was highly likely to be appendicitis, and that he should seek urgent medical attention, and also not eat or drink (other than water) as they may need to operate quite soon. I passed it on, he went to A&E, and it all played out that way. I’ve since switched my subscription to Gemini for work related reasons, but it has also been very helpful in my Gastritis recovery as I try to avoid flareups from dietary choices. A typical HN stance is waiting for this fad to go away, but it certainly does have uses for me (currently being briefed by Gemini on an unfamiliar DIY task).
satisfice 1y ago
Anecdotal evidence: the gold standard!

23 points by tedsanders 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

boopity2025 1y ago

[dead]

zahlman 1y ago
> AI had carotid dissection in mind from the first message This does not follow from the evidence presented, even if we disregard questions of what "mind" means in this context. It's entirely plausible that the possibility of carotid dissection only made sense to consider partway through the conversation.
- mcphage 1y ago
  I agree about the issue of “mind”, but the rest is mentioned directly in the article: > When I scrolled to the top of the chat where I’d first reported my neck pain, I saw that ChatGPT had mentioned a possible carotid dissection in its very first response to me. It started as a low probability guess that increased in certainty as my symptoms progressed. I find it striking that it was considering that possibility from my very first message.

anovikov 1y ago

[flagged]

zahlman 1y ago
It's late night in North America; you said this less than an hour after the post went up; and plenty of posts get little traction on HN (including submissions of links that later become very popular on a separate submission or from the curated "second chance" queue).

mwetzler 1y ago

my dad has a similar story. the voice of reason can be very helpful for people who take pride in telling themselves “it’s fine”. thanks Chat!

zahlman 1y ago

This title is clickbait. The implication ("following ChatGPT advice caused an emergency requiring an ER visit") is nearly the opposite of the central claim made ("ChatGPT encouraged me to go to the ER, and it turned out to be a life-saving decision").

wiseowise 1y ago
That’s your interpretation. When I read the title I thought about positive case [ChatGPT saved my life], not the negative one.
- weikju 1y ago
  Same here. It's very similar to a lot of the "Apple Watch saved my life" stories/headlines.
- mrjay42 1y ago
  Asking about the logic here: this is a form of fallacy...kinda? His "interpretation" or guess, wasn't worse or better than yours. Therefore, his statement about a misleading title is not invalidated because you guessed in the opposite direction. Let's say Hypothesis 1 Article is negative (ChatGPT gave bad medical advice and that led to the E.R.) Then * His guess -> is correct * Your guess -> is wrong Hypothesis 2 Article is positive Then * His guess -> is wrong * Your guess -> is correct Conclusion: In any case you had NO way to know beforehand So, in what ways pointing out that this is "his interpretation" invalidates anything he said? Of course, it is his guess and based on the title alone, it's at least an equally valid guess as yours. I say "at least", because it's not unreasonable to think that an LLM might have hallucinated some medical advice and that could lead someone to have an unhealthy practice which led them to the E.R.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > That’s your interpretation. It's the ordinary understanding of the idiom.

hn_throw2025 1y ago

I can add to this. About a month ago, a friend had abdominal pains but was reluctant to go to A&E (Emergency Room). I had my suspicions, but checked them with ChatGPT. The LLM said it was highly likely to be appendicitis, and that he should seek urgent medical attention, and also not eat or drink (other than water) as they may need to operate quite soon. I passed it on, he went to A&E, and it all played out that way. I’ve since switched my subscription to Gemini for work related reasons, but it has also been very helpful in my Gastritis recovery as I try to avoid flareups from dietary choices. A typical HN stance is waiting for this fad to go away, but it certainly does have uses for me (currently being briefed by Gemini on an unfamiliar DIY task).

satisfice 1y ago

Anecdotal evidence: the gold standard!