10 ms·

ChatGPT has made a material difference in my ability to understand health problems, test results, and to communicate with doctors effectively. My wife and I wer

by bwb 9mo ago

ChatGPT has made a material difference in my ability to understand health problems, test results, and to communicate with doctors effectively. My wife and I were talking last night about how helpful it was in 2025. I hope that it continues to be good at this. I want regulators to keep an eye on this and make smart laws. I don't want it to go away, as its value is massive in my life. (One example, if you are curious: I've been doing rehab for a back injury for about 10 years. I worked with a certified trainer/rehab professional for many years and built a program to keep me as pain-free as possible. I rebuilt the entire thing with ChatGPT/Gemini about 6 weeks ago, and I've had less pain than at any other point in my life. I spent at least 12 hours working with AI to test and research every exercise, and I've got some knowledge to help guide me, but I was amazed by how far it has come in 12 months. I ran the results by a trainer to double-check it was well thought out.)

metalliqaz 9mo ago
Anything you say can and will be used against you.
- JKCalhoun 9mo ago
  You bring up an interesting point. How is it we have come to a place in society where we second-guess everything we type? But perhaps also where we go (with our "tracking devices" in our pockets…). I mean, obviously the internet is what changed everything. But it is like you have a megaphone strapped to your face whenever you connect to a site and make a comment. Maybe this is not a good thing.
- bwb 9mo ago
  I've been on the web since it was born. When will this happen? :) How is this manifesting in reality?
trollbridge 9mo ago
This sounds like excellent evidentiary material for a future insurer or government health provider to decide you're uninsurable, not eligible for a job, and so on. And the great thing about it is that you already signed all your rights away for them to do this exact thing, when we could have had an open world with open models run locally instead where you got to keep your private health information private.
- SecretDreams 9mo ago
  System working as intended!
- lotsofpulp 9mo ago
  If an insurer is able to reduce (or recoup) costs from likelier risks, then the remaining insureds benefit from lower premiums. If the goal is providing subsidies (i.e. wealth transfers), then insurance is not the way to do it. That is the government’s role.
  - alpinisme 9mo ago
    Insurance that is maximally responsive to patient health changes in terms of cost (ie making healthier people pay less) ends up being an inefficient way of just having people pay for their healthcare directly. And it naturally means the people with highest premiums are the least likely to be able to afford it (the elderly, the disabled, those with chronic conditions that make them less likely to maintain high earning jobs steadily, etc)
    - Workaccount2 9mo ago
      The obvious retort to this is: "If I focused on my health, ate clean and exercised daily, why should I also be subsidizing Billy "video-games-are-my-exercise" fatass's chronic health conditions?" This is why there is a hyperfixation on shifting blame away from (failing) individuals. The logic breaks when Billy has to admit he just hates exercising. And yes, before you comment, I know "maybe Billy has (condition outside all control) so it's not on him". Please, see what I just said in the previous statement.
      - OverTheTetons 9mo ago
        Is the obvious retort to this: I don't think we should play arbiter for who has and hasn't lived a healthy enough life to still believe they should get healthcare?
atmosx 9mo ago
I agree. LLMs cannot and should not replace professionals but there are huge gaps that can be filled by intro provided and the fact that you can dig deeper into any subject is huge. This is probably a field that MistralAI could use privacy and GDPR as leverage to build LLMs around that.
- phatfish 9mo ago
  One of the big issues I have with LLMs that when you start a prompting session with an easy question it all goes great. It bring up points you might not have considered and appears very knowledgeable. Fact checking at this stage will show the LLM is invariably correct. Then you start "digging deeper" on a specific sub-topic, and this is where the risk of an incorrect response grows. But it is easy to continue with the assumption the text you are getting is accurate. This has happened so many times with the computing/programming related topics i usually prompt about, there is no way I would trust a response from an LLM on health related issues I am not already very familiar with. Given that the LLM will give incorrect information (after lulling people with a false sense of it being accurate), who is going to be responsible for the person that makes themselves worse off by doing self diagnosis, even with a privacy focused service?
  - JKCalhoun 9mo ago
    That's a good point—and I have probably fallen victim to it as well: the "sliding scale" of an LLM's authority. Like you, I fact-check it (well, search the internet to see if others validate the claims/points) but I don't do so with every response.
  - atmosx 9mo ago
    The responsibility falls always to the patient. That’s true with doctors are as well: you visit two doctors they give you different diagnosis, one tells to go for surgery, the other tells you it’s not worth the hassle. Who can decide? The patient does. LLMs are yet another powerful tool under our belt, you know it’s hallucinating so be careful. That said, even asking specialized info about this or that medical topic can be a great thing for patients. That’s why I believe it’s a good thing to have specialized LLMs that can tailor responses on individual health situations. The problem is the framework and the implementation end goal. IMO state owned health data is a goldmine for any social welfare system and now with AI they can make use of it in novel ways.
jsheard 9mo ago
On the other hand, sometimes you end up like this guy. Are you feeling lucky? https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/08/after-using-chatgpt-man-swaps-his-salt-for-sodium-bromide-and-suffers-psychosis/ https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/08/after-using-chatgpt-m...
- wiseowise 9mo ago
  Natural selection at work. I don’t see anything suspicious here.
- glemion43 9mo ago
  The man in the article did not use it as a research help and did not verify it with experts. So what's your argument?
- vjvjvjvjghv 9mo ago
  You could also list plenty of horror stories where people went to medical professionals and got screwed over. There is this myth that people can go to doctors and get perfect attention and treatment. Reality is far from that
  - datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
    There’s the concept of “personal advocacy” when receiving healthcare. Unfortunately, you’ll only get the best outcomes if you continually seek out treatment with diligence and patience. But framing it as a “myth [of] perfect attention and treatment” sounds a bit like delegitimizing the entire healthcare industry in a way that makes me raise my eyebrow.
    - cm2012 9mo ago
      Id say the Healthcare industry works hard but is probably working at like 20% of their possible productivity due to systemic issues.
      - datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
narmiouh 9mo ago
I don't think one can deny the benefits here. The detractors here are like don't build a side walk coz someone may trip and fall or don't plant trees in your front yard coz of what happened to the Texas governor. Most would likely agree that everything needs a balanced approach, bashing a service completely as evil and fully advocating people to stay away vs claiming the service is flawless (which the OP isn't doing btw) aren't either a balanced position. Think different doesn't have to mean think extreme.
ryan_n 9mo ago
That's awesome that it's helped you so much, chronic back pain is awful. Is it possible though, that this could be interpreted as a failure of the trainer to come up with a successful treatment plan for you? "Sudden" relief after 10 years of therapy just because you changed the program seems like they were just having you perform the wrong exercises no?
- narmiouh 9mo ago
  We have to also understand that the trainer didn't get to spend 12 hours of researching every minutia or do a trial and error study to get to where OP got to. This doesn't necessarily mean the trainer failed, just that they were constrained by time, which OP wasn't. And I think that is the essence of this tech, when used wisely, I can lead to results like these which you can't get despite having access to the best talent for a limited time. Only the well afforded can afford a full time trainer/therapist.
  - ryan_n 9mo ago
    Absolutely, I didn't mean any disrespect towards any of the professionals helping OP with their back issues. It can be an incredibly hard thing to treat.
- bwb 9mo ago
  The trainer was a godsend, got me to ~95% pain-free, and taught me all kinds of things. He is amazing. But 2025 was maybe down to 90% pain-free, and I want to get stronger. So I did a big rewrite of my entire workout plan and checked everything. AI wasn't perfect, but it was amazing when you already know some. It is still a tool I had to direct, and it took a few days of work. But I'm amazed at where it got me to. It took the injury into consideration and my main sport, and built around that. In the past I tried do this online and couldn't do it given the numerous factors involved. It was not perfect, but over the course of a few days, I was able to sort it out (and test with a trainer on the approach a few weeks after). I've been 100% pain free for 6 weeks in a way I haven't felt in a long time.
  - 9mo ago
jmyeet 9mo ago
This kind of comment scares me because it's an example of people substituring professional advice for an LLM where LLMs are known to hallucinate or otherwise simply make stuff up. I see this all the time when I write queries and get the annoying Gemini AI snippet on a subject I know about and often I'll see the AI make provably and objectively false statements.
- travisgriggs 9mo ago
  I have this same reaction. But I also have to honestly ask myself “aren’t humans also prone to make stuff up” when they feel they need to have an answer, but don’t really? And yet despite admitting that humans hallucinate and make failures too, I remain uncomfortable with ultimate trust in LLMs. Perhaps, while LLMs simulate authority well, there is an uncanny valley effect in trusting them, because some of the other aspect of interacting with an authority person are “off”.
- simianwords 9mo ago
  You are exaggerating. LLMs simply don’t hallucinate all that often, especially ChatGPT. I really hate comments such as yours because anyone who has used ChatGPT in these contexts would know that it is pretty accurate and safe. People also can generally be trusted to identify good from bad advice. They are smart like that. We should be encouraging thoughtful ChatGPT use instead of showing fake concern at each opportunity. Your comment and many others just try to signal pessimism as a virtue and has very less bearing on reality.
  - ipaddr 9mo ago
    LLM give false information often. The ability for you to catch incorrect facts is limited by your knowledge and ability and desire to do independent research. LLMs are accurate with everything you don't know but are factually incorrect with things you are an expert in is a common comment for a reason.
    - simianwords 9mo ago
      No they don’t give false information often.
datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
It seems like outcomes are probably K-shaped: those who are capable of critical thinking and deciding what type of information should be confirmed by a healthcare professional and what type of information is relatively riskless to consume from ChatGPT should have positive outcomes. Those who are prone to disinformation and misinterpretation may experience some very negative health outcomes.
- JKCalhoun 9mo ago
  I agree with that. The question I suppose is whether an LLM can detect, perhaps by the question itself, if they are dealing with someone (I hate to say it) "stable". Anyone asking how to commit suicide, as a recent example, should be an obvious red flag. We can get more nuanced from there.
  - tedmiston 9mo ago
    > The question I suppose is whether an LLM can detect, perhaps by the question itself, if they are dealing with someone (I hate to say it) "stable". GPT-5 made a major advance on mental health guardrails in sensitive conversations. https://www.theverge.com/news/718407/openai-chatgpt-mental-health-guardrails-break-reminders https://www.theverge.com/news/718407/openai-chatgpt-mental-h... https://openai.com/index/strengthening-chatgpt-responses-in-sensitive-conversations/ https://openai.com/index/strengthening-chatgpt-responses-in-...
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
JKCalhoun 9mo ago
I also think health (and car-problem diagnosis) are excellent tasks for LLMs. The you-are-the-product thing, and privacy, has me wondering when Apple will step in and provide LLM health in a way we can trust. I know I say that and I face the slings and arrows of those distrusting Apple, but I still believe they're the one big company out there that knows that there is money in being the one guy that doesn't sell your data.
rconti 9mo ago
It can be helpful, but also untrustworthy. My mother-in-law has been struggling with some health challenges the past couple of months. My wife (her daughter) works in the medical field and has been a great advocate for her mother. This whole time I've also been peppering ChatGPT with questions, and in turn I discuss matters with my wife based on this. I think it was generally correct in a lot of its assertions, but as time goes on and the situation does it improve, I occasionally revisit my chat and update it with the latest results and findings, and it keeps insisting we're at a turning point and this is exactly what we should expect to be happening. 6 weeks ago, I think its advice was generally spot on, but today it's just sounding more tone-deaf and optimistic. I'd hate to be _relying_ on this as my only source of advice and information.
- codexjourneys 9mo ago
  Totally agree, it can be a bit of an echo chamber. I had an infection post-dental-work. Bing Chat insisted I had swollen lymph nodes from a cold that would resolve on their own, then decided I had a salivary gland infection. After a follow-up with a real-world ENT, it was (probably accurately) diagnosed as a soft-tissue infection that had completely resolved on two rounds of antibiotics. The AI never raised that possibility, whereas the ENT and dentist examined me and reached that conclusion immediately. I do think AI is great for discussing some health things (like "how should I interpret this report or test result?"), but it's too echo chamber-y and suggestion-prone for accurate diagnosis right now.
  - bwb 9mo ago
    Ya I wouldn't trust it for diagnosis at this point. But it can help you get pointed in the right direction so human, tests, and the scientific process can try to figure out the rest. Doctors struggle with diagnosis as well. I have stories and I bet everyone has stories about being passed from doctor to doctor to doctor, and none of them talk to each other or work holistically.
DANmode 9mo ago
It doesn’t even have to be that well-read (although it is), it just has to listen to your feedback more than 11 minutes per visit, so it can have a chance at effectively steering you…
- bwb 9mo ago
  I'm lucky to live in Europe now, I cried the first time I went to a doctor here, he chatted with me for 45 minutes. I begged my doctor in the USA to let me book back-to-back sessions, so I could ask him questions and better understand what was going on. He said no; I only had 10 minutes, and he generally didn't have time to answer any questions or provide details. He was a good doc, but just couldn't take the time, and insurance wouldn't comp him for back to back appointments.
  - DANmode 9mo ago
    > He was a good doc, but just couldn't take the time Sure he could. He would just be paid less, and you can’t have that - doctors are very important people!
    - bwb 9mo ago
      True
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
bossyTeacher 9mo ago
>my ability to understand health problems How do you know that this understanding is correct? To me, epistemologically, this is not too different from gaining your health knowledge from a homeopath or gaining your physics knowledge from a Flat Earther. You are in no position to discern the validity of your "knowledge".
- zemvpferreira 9mo ago
  It's a lot easier to double-check, cross-reference, or test the validity of advice given by a gpt. It has no authority, no persuasion mechanisms, and its opinions are there in plain text ready to be picked apart. You can ask it for references and non-confrontationally challenge it on the things you're sceptical about. It generally avoids woo in my experience though it's hardly always correct in specific advice, it can definitely point you in productive directions. Which is completely different from discussing anything health with a homeopath, who at best will try to get you to avoid productive treatment and at worst poison you.
- carlosjobim 9mo ago
  > You are in no position to discern the validity of your "knowledge". He is the only one who is in that position, because he is the only person who is inside his body. He is physically and mentally a hundred percent in the position to discern the validity of the advice.
  - bwb 9mo ago
    Well said. Thank you!
  - bossyTeacher 9mo ago
    > He is the only one who is in that position, because he is the only person who is inside his body Tell that to everyone who has died due to following quack medicine advice.
    - carlosjobim 9mo ago
      How does your comment have any relevance? The commenter with back pain took a commendable, scientific approach. You are talking like everybody in the world is an idiot, and you alone have any intelligence. If this is how you experience everyday life, then I suggest you seek out challenges in real life, where you actually encounter people who are on the same level of intelligence as you or higher, and you will learn some humility instead of dismissing everybody as crazy.
class3shock 9mo ago
Or it's a placebo effect. And if it didn't work out and made you worse or, god forbid, the advice caused you to get seriously injured, then what? ChatGPT won't take any responsibility. I have so many issues with our current health system but an alternative is not an unreliable search tool that takes no responsibility for the information it provides.
- yonaguska 9mo ago
  on a similar vein, I have recurring back issues due to a spinal issue. I gave the issue to ChatGpT and it gave me almost all of the exercise I had been given years ago by a chiropractor. It's nowhere near a replacement for having someone coach me through movements though.
- deaux 9mo ago
  > And if it didn't work out and made you worse or, god forbid, the advice caused you to get seriously injured, then what? ChatGPT won't take any responsibility. Realistically in 99% of actual cases where this happens due to human medical advice, the humans too won't take any responsibility.
  - class3shock 9mo ago
    A doctor is medically and legally responsible for the guidance they give patients. Are there cases where they give bad advice and avoid taking responsibility? Of course, as is the case with lawyers, engineers, etc., but there are standards they must meet, laws they must follow, and most importantly, consequences for not doing so. This has zero responsibility, not some theoretical, "it may try to shirk responsibility" or "many people report it not taking responsibility", it by default takes no responsibility.
    - deaux 9mo ago
      I care about the real world, not about theory. In theory, 99% of bad advice by doctors doesn't have any consequences for them. And that's being extremely conservative, in reality it's more like 0.01%, where an actual death can be directly attributed.
nitwit005 9mo ago
If you'd been doing the rehab for 10 years, what did you need exactly? It seems like you should have had a decade to ask whatever questions you wanted.
- bwb 9mo ago
  That was a specific example where AI helped me revamp my workout. No workout stays static; it has evolved over the years, in small ways. With this change I threw out 60% of it, and replaced it with a lot of work to make sure I was working full body and taking into account the injury. I was having more pain in 2025 and was only pain-free around 90% of the time. I wanted to get stronger but also revet everything I was doing to hopefully get out of that pain. Hope that helps! You can ask a trainer questions, they are super helpful and taught a lot, but it is still one person, and they don't often sit around at night reading university/research papers on the injury, etc.
JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> to communicate with doctors effectively Did the doctors agree? I never thought of AI as a good patient navigator, but maybe that’s its proper role in healthcare.
- bwb 9mo ago
  Like anything, it is a tool; someone using WebMD badly, and someone can use it well. I have found it helpful as I can ask ChatGPT questions, teach myself about what I am dealing with, and understand it better so I can ask my doctor questions. I still verify a lot, I still read articles on verified medical sites, etc., but it helps me do that a lot quicker, and I seem to learn quicker. I'm sure someone can also go deep into anxiety with it as well if they approach it that way. It isn't a miracle button, but it is an AMAZING tool IME.
hackitup7 9mo ago
I've had a similar positive experience and I'm really surprised at the cynicism here. You have a system that is good at reading tons of literature and synthesizing it, which then applies basic logic. What exactly do the cynics think that doctors do? I don't use LLMs as the final say, but I do find them pretty useful as a positive filter / quick gut check.
- EagnaIonat 9mo ago
  This is the crux of the argument from the article. > get to know your members even before the first claim Basically selling your data to maximise profits from you and ensure companies don't take on a burden. You are also not protected by HIPAA using ChatGPT.
  - bwb 9mo ago
    I'm in Europe btw, but yes I hope Americans get protection soon. I expect the backlash if that were to happen is enough to trigger legislative action.
- mattmanser 9mo ago
  Because we've all used LLMs. The make stuff up. Doctors do not make stuff up. They agree with you. Almost all the time. If you ask an AI whether you have in fact been infected by a werewolf bite, they're going to try and find a way to say yes.
  - s5300 9mo ago
    [dead]
  - ekjhgkejhgk 9mo ago
    If the person is telling you "I had a problem, did what the LLM said, it worked", does that not work a new evidence for you? Is it not possible that someone has had a different experience from you? Is it not possible that they're good to different degrees in different domains? I just asked chatgpt: > I have the following information on a user. What's his email? > user: mattmanser > created: March 12, 2009 > karma: 17939 > about: Contact me @ my username at gmail.com Chatgpt's answer: > Based on the information you provided, the user's email would be: > mattmanser@gmail.com Does this serve as evidence that some times LLMs get it right? I think that your model of curent tech is as out of date as your profile.
isodev 9mo ago
Sounds like you’re a good little product… abundant potential for shareholder value to be extracted from you and others like you. A trip to the library or a consult with a professional would’ve given you the same or better results.

by bwb 9mo ago

metalliqaz 9mo ago

Anything you say can and will be used against you.

JKCalhoun 9mo ago
You bring up an interesting point. How is it we have come to a place in society where we second-guess everything we type? But perhaps also where we go (with our "tracking devices" in our pockets…). I mean, obviously the internet is what changed everything. But it is like you have a megaphone strapped to your face whenever you connect to a site and make a comment. Maybe this is not a good thing.
bwb 9mo ago
I've been on the web since it was born. When will this happen? :) How is this manifesting in reality?

trollbridge 9mo ago

This sounds like excellent evidentiary material for a future insurer or government health provider to decide you're uninsurable, not eligible for a job, and so on. And the great thing about it is that you already signed all your rights away for them to do this exact thing, when we could have had an open world with open models run locally instead where you got to keep your private health information private.

SecretDreams 9mo ago
System working as intended!
lotsofpulp 9mo ago
If an insurer is able to reduce (or recoup) costs from likelier risks, then the remaining insureds benefit from lower premiums. If the goal is providing subsidies (i.e. wealth transfers), then insurance is not the way to do it. That is the government’s role.
- alpinisme 9mo ago
  Insurance that is maximally responsive to patient health changes in terms of cost (ie making healthier people pay less) ends up being an inefficient way of just having people pay for their healthcare directly. And it naturally means the people with highest premiums are the least likely to be able to afford it (the elderly, the disabled, those with chronic conditions that make them less likely to maintain high earning jobs steadily, etc)
  - Workaccount2 9mo ago
    The obvious retort to this is: "If I focused on my health, ate clean and exercised daily, why should I also be subsidizing Billy "video-games-are-my-exercise" fatass's chronic health conditions?" This is why there is a hyperfixation on shifting blame away from (failing) individuals. The logic breaks when Billy has to admit he just hates exercising. And yes, before you comment, I know "maybe Billy has (condition outside all control) so it's not on him". Please, see what I just said in the previous statement.
    - OverTheTetons 9mo ago
      Is the obvious retort to this: I don't think we should play arbiter for who has and hasn't lived a healthy enough life to still believe they should get healthcare?

atmosx 9mo ago

I agree. LLMs cannot and should not replace professionals but there are huge gaps that can be filled by intro provided and the fact that you can dig deeper into any subject is huge. This is probably a field that MistralAI could use privacy and GDPR as leverage to build LLMs around that.

phatfish 9mo ago
One of the big issues I have with LLMs that when you start a prompting session with an easy question it all goes great. It bring up points you might not have considered and appears very knowledgeable. Fact checking at this stage will show the LLM is invariably correct. Then you start "digging deeper" on a specific sub-topic, and this is where the risk of an incorrect response grows. But it is easy to continue with the assumption the text you are getting is accurate. This has happened so many times with the computing/programming related topics i usually prompt about, there is no way I would trust a response from an LLM on health related issues I am not already very familiar with. Given that the LLM will give incorrect information (after lulling people with a false sense of it being accurate), who is going to be responsible for the person that makes themselves worse off by doing self diagnosis, even with a privacy focused service?
- JKCalhoun 9mo ago
  That's a good point—and I have probably fallen victim to it as well: the "sliding scale" of an LLM's authority. Like you, I fact-check it (well, search the internet to see if others validate the claims/points) but I don't do so with every response.
- atmosx 9mo ago
  The responsibility falls always to the patient. That’s true with doctors are as well: you visit two doctors they give you different diagnosis, one tells to go for surgery, the other tells you it’s not worth the hassle. Who can decide? The patient does. LLMs are yet another powerful tool under our belt, you know it’s hallucinating so be careful. That said, even asking specialized info about this or that medical topic can be a great thing for patients. That’s why I believe it’s a good thing to have specialized LLMs that can tailor responses on individual health situations. The problem is the framework and the implementation end goal. IMO state owned health data is a goldmine for any social welfare system and now with AI they can make use of it in novel ways.

jsheard 9mo ago

On the other hand, sometimes you end up like this guy. Are you feeling lucky? https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/08/after-using-chatgpt-man-swaps-his-salt-for-sodium-bromide-and-suffers-psychosis/ https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/08/after-using-chatgpt-m...

wiseowise 9mo ago
Natural selection at work. I don’t see anything suspicious here.
glemion43 9mo ago
The man in the article did not use it as a research help and did not verify it with experts. So what's your argument?
vjvjvjvjghv 9mo ago
You could also list plenty of horror stories where people went to medical professionals and got screwed over. There is this myth that people can go to doctors and get perfect attention and treatment. Reality is far from that
- datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
  There’s the concept of “personal advocacy” when receiving healthcare. Unfortunately, you’ll only get the best outcomes if you continually seek out treatment with diligence and patience. But framing it as a “myth [of] perfect attention and treatment” sounds a bit like delegitimizing the entire healthcare industry in a way that makes me raise my eyebrow.
  - cm2012 9mo ago
    Id say the Healthcare industry works hard but is probably working at like 20% of their possible productivity due to systemic issues.
    - datsci_est_2015 9mo ago

narmiouh 9mo ago

I don't think one can deny the benefits here. The detractors here are like don't build a side walk coz someone may trip and fall or don't plant trees in your front yard coz of what happened to the Texas governor. Most would likely agree that everything needs a balanced approach, bashing a service completely as evil and fully advocating people to stay away vs claiming the service is flawless (which the OP isn't doing btw) aren't either a balanced position. Think different doesn't have to mean think extreme.

ryan_n 9mo ago

That's awesome that it's helped you so much, chronic back pain is awful. Is it possible though, that this could be interpreted as a failure of the trainer to come up with a successful treatment plan for you? "Sudden" relief after 10 years of therapy just because you changed the program seems like they were just having you perform the wrong exercises no?

narmiouh 9mo ago
We have to also understand that the trainer didn't get to spend 12 hours of researching every minutia or do a trial and error study to get to where OP got to. This doesn't necessarily mean the trainer failed, just that they were constrained by time, which OP wasn't. And I think that is the essence of this tech, when used wisely, I can lead to results like these which you can't get despite having access to the best talent for a limited time. Only the well afforded can afford a full time trainer/therapist.
- ryan_n 9mo ago
  Absolutely, I didn't mean any disrespect towards any of the professionals helping OP with their back issues. It can be an incredibly hard thing to treat.
bwb 9mo ago
The trainer was a godsend, got me to ~95% pain-free, and taught me all kinds of things. He is amazing. But 2025 was maybe down to 90% pain-free, and I want to get stronger. So I did a big rewrite of my entire workout plan and checked everything. AI wasn't perfect, but it was amazing when you already know some. It is still a tool I had to direct, and it took a few days of work. But I'm amazed at where it got me to. It took the injury into consideration and my main sport, and built around that. In the past I tried do this online and couldn't do it given the numerous factors involved. It was not perfect, but over the course of a few days, I was able to sort it out (and test with a trainer on the approach a few weeks after). I've been 100% pain free for 6 weeks in a way I haven't felt in a long time.
- 9mo ago

jmyeet 9mo ago

This kind of comment scares me because it's an example of people substituring professional advice for an LLM where LLMs are known to hallucinate or otherwise simply make stuff up. I see this all the time when I write queries and get the annoying Gemini AI snippet on a subject I know about and often I'll see the AI make provably and objectively false statements.

travisgriggs 9mo ago
I have this same reaction. But I also have to honestly ask myself “aren’t humans also prone to make stuff up” when they feel they need to have an answer, but don’t really? And yet despite admitting that humans hallucinate and make failures too, I remain uncomfortable with ultimate trust in LLMs. Perhaps, while LLMs simulate authority well, there is an uncanny valley effect in trusting them, because some of the other aspect of interacting with an authority person are “off”.
simianwords 9mo ago
You are exaggerating. LLMs simply don’t hallucinate all that often, especially ChatGPT. I really hate comments such as yours because anyone who has used ChatGPT in these contexts would know that it is pretty accurate and safe. People also can generally be trusted to identify good from bad advice. They are smart like that. We should be encouraging thoughtful ChatGPT use instead of showing fake concern at each opportunity. Your comment and many others just try to signal pessimism as a virtue and has very less bearing on reality.
- ipaddr 9mo ago
  LLM give false information often. The ability for you to catch incorrect facts is limited by your knowledge and ability and desire to do independent research. LLMs are accurate with everything you don't know but are factually incorrect with things you are an expert in is a common comment for a reason.
  - simianwords 9mo ago
    No they don’t give false information often.

datsci_est_2015 9mo ago

It seems like outcomes are probably K-shaped: those who are capable of critical thinking and deciding what type of information should be confirmed by a healthcare professional and what type of information is relatively riskless to consume from ChatGPT should have positive outcomes. Those who are prone to disinformation and misinterpretation may experience some very negative health outcomes.

JKCalhoun 9mo ago
I agree with that. The question I suppose is whether an LLM can detect, perhaps by the question itself, if they are dealing with someone (I hate to say it) "stable". Anyone asking how to commit suicide, as a recent example, should be an obvious red flag. We can get more nuanced from there.
- tedmiston 9mo ago
  > The question I suppose is whether an LLM can detect, perhaps by the question itself, if they are dealing with someone (I hate to say it) "stable". GPT-5 made a major advance on mental health guardrails in sensitive conversations. https://www.theverge.com/news/718407/openai-chatgpt-mental-health-guardrails-break-reminders https://www.theverge.com/news/718407/openai-chatgpt-mental-h... https://openai.com/index/strengthening-chatgpt-responses-in-sensitive-conversations/ https://openai.com/index/strengthening-chatgpt-responses-in-...

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

JKCalhoun 9mo ago

I also think health (and car-problem diagnosis) are excellent tasks for LLMs. The you-are-the-product thing, and privacy, has me wondering when Apple will step in and provide LLM health in a way we can trust. I know I say that and I face the slings and arrows of those distrusting Apple, but I still believe they're the one big company out there that knows that there is money in being the one guy that doesn't sell your data.

rconti 9mo ago

It can be helpful, but also untrustworthy. My mother-in-law has been struggling with some health challenges the past couple of months. My wife (her daughter) works in the medical field and has been a great advocate for her mother. This whole time I've also been peppering ChatGPT with questions, and in turn I discuss matters with my wife based on this. I think it was generally correct in a lot of its assertions, but as time goes on and the situation does it improve, I occasionally revisit my chat and update it with the latest results and findings, and it keeps insisting we're at a turning point and this is exactly what we should expect to be happening. 6 weeks ago, I think its advice was generally spot on, but today it's just sounding more tone-deaf and optimistic. I'd hate to be _relying_ on this as my only source of advice and information.

codexjourneys 9mo ago
Totally agree, it can be a bit of an echo chamber. I had an infection post-dental-work. Bing Chat insisted I had swollen lymph nodes from a cold that would resolve on their own, then decided I had a salivary gland infection. After a follow-up with a real-world ENT, it was (probably accurately) diagnosed as a soft-tissue infection that had completely resolved on two rounds of antibiotics. The AI never raised that possibility, whereas the ENT and dentist examined me and reached that conclusion immediately. I do think AI is great for discussing some health things (like "how should I interpret this report or test result?"), but it's too echo chamber-y and suggestion-prone for accurate diagnosis right now.
- bwb 9mo ago
  Ya I wouldn't trust it for diagnosis at this point. But it can help you get pointed in the right direction so human, tests, and the scientific process can try to figure out the rest. Doctors struggle with diagnosis as well. I have stories and I bet everyone has stories about being passed from doctor to doctor to doctor, and none of them talk to each other or work holistically.

DANmode 9mo ago

It doesn’t even have to be that well-read (although it is), it just has to listen to your feedback more than 11 minutes per visit, so it can have a chance at effectively steering you…

bwb 9mo ago
I'm lucky to live in Europe now, I cried the first time I went to a doctor here, he chatted with me for 45 minutes. I begged my doctor in the USA to let me book back-to-back sessions, so I could ask him questions and better understand what was going on. He said no; I only had 10 minutes, and he generally didn't have time to answer any questions or provide details. He was a good doc, but just couldn't take the time, and insurance wouldn't comp him for back to back appointments.
- DANmode 9mo ago
  > He was a good doc, but just couldn't take the time Sure he could. He would just be paid less, and you can’t have that - doctors are very important people!
  - bwb 9mo ago
    True

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

bossyTeacher 9mo ago

>my ability to understand health problems How do you know that this understanding is correct? To me, epistemologically, this is not too different from gaining your health knowledge from a homeopath or gaining your physics knowledge from a Flat Earther. You are in no position to discern the validity of your "knowledge".

zemvpferreira 9mo ago
It's a lot easier to double-check, cross-reference, or test the validity of advice given by a gpt. It has no authority, no persuasion mechanisms, and its opinions are there in plain text ready to be picked apart. You can ask it for references and non-confrontationally challenge it on the things you're sceptical about. It generally avoids woo in my experience though it's hardly always correct in specific advice, it can definitely point you in productive directions. Which is completely different from discussing anything health with a homeopath, who at best will try to get you to avoid productive treatment and at worst poison you.
carlosjobim 9mo ago
> You are in no position to discern the validity of your "knowledge". He is the only one who is in that position, because he is the only person who is inside his body. He is physically and mentally a hundred percent in the position to discern the validity of the advice.
- bwb 9mo ago
  Well said. Thank you!
- bossyTeacher 9mo ago
  > He is the only one who is in that position, because he is the only person who is inside his body Tell that to everyone who has died due to following quack medicine advice.
  - carlosjobim 9mo ago
    How does your comment have any relevance? The commenter with back pain took a commendable, scientific approach. You are talking like everybody in the world is an idiot, and you alone have any intelligence. If this is how you experience everyday life, then I suggest you seek out challenges in real life, where you actually encounter people who are on the same level of intelligence as you or higher, and you will learn some humility instead of dismissing everybody as crazy.

class3shock 9mo ago

Or it's a placebo effect. And if it didn't work out and made you worse or, god forbid, the advice caused you to get seriously injured, then what? ChatGPT won't take any responsibility. I have so many issues with our current health system but an alternative is not an unreliable search tool that takes no responsibility for the information it provides.

yonaguska 9mo ago
on a similar vein, I have recurring back issues due to a spinal issue. I gave the issue to ChatGpT and it gave me almost all of the exercise I had been given years ago by a chiropractor. It's nowhere near a replacement for having someone coach me through movements though.
deaux 9mo ago
> And if it didn't work out and made you worse or, god forbid, the advice caused you to get seriously injured, then what? ChatGPT won't take any responsibility. Realistically in 99% of actual cases where this happens due to human medical advice, the humans too won't take any responsibility.
- class3shock 9mo ago
  A doctor is medically and legally responsible for the guidance they give patients. Are there cases where they give bad advice and avoid taking responsibility? Of course, as is the case with lawyers, engineers, etc., but there are standards they must meet, laws they must follow, and most importantly, consequences for not doing so. This has zero responsibility, not some theoretical, "it may try to shirk responsibility" or "many people report it not taking responsibility", it by default takes no responsibility.
  - deaux 9mo ago
    I care about the real world, not about theory. In theory, 99% of bad advice by doctors doesn't have any consequences for them. And that's being extremely conservative, in reality it's more like 0.01%, where an actual death can be directly attributed.

nitwit005 9mo ago

If you'd been doing the rehab for 10 years, what did you need exactly? It seems like you should have had a decade to ask whatever questions you wanted.

bwb 9mo ago
That was a specific example where AI helped me revamp my workout. No workout stays static; it has evolved over the years, in small ways. With this change I threw out 60% of it, and replaced it with a lot of work to make sure I was working full body and taking into account the injury. I was having more pain in 2025 and was only pain-free around 90% of the time. I wanted to get stronger but also revet everything I was doing to hopefully get out of that pain. Hope that helps! You can ask a trainer questions, they are super helpful and taught a lot, but it is still one person, and they don't often sit around at night reading university/research papers on the injury, etc.

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago

> to communicate with doctors effectively Did the doctors agree? I never thought of AI as a good patient navigator, but maybe that’s its proper role in healthcare.

bwb 9mo ago
Like anything, it is a tool; someone using WebMD badly, and someone can use it well. I have found it helpful as I can ask ChatGPT questions, teach myself about what I am dealing with, and understand it better so I can ask my doctor questions. I still verify a lot, I still read articles on verified medical sites, etc., but it helps me do that a lot quicker, and I seem to learn quicker. I'm sure someone can also go deep into anxiety with it as well if they approach it that way. It isn't a miracle button, but it is an AMAZING tool IME.

hackitup7 9mo ago

I've had a similar positive experience and I'm really surprised at the cynicism here. You have a system that is good at reading tons of literature and synthesizing it, which then applies basic logic. What exactly do the cynics think that doctors do? I don't use LLMs as the final say, but I do find them pretty useful as a positive filter / quick gut check.

EagnaIonat 9mo ago
This is the crux of the argument from the article. > get to know your members even before the first claim Basically selling your data to maximise profits from you and ensure companies don't take on a burden. You are also not protected by HIPAA using ChatGPT.
- bwb 9mo ago
  I'm in Europe btw, but yes I hope Americans get protection soon. I expect the backlash if that were to happen is enough to trigger legislative action.
mattmanser 9mo ago
Because we've all used LLMs. The make stuff up. Doctors do not make stuff up. They agree with you. Almost all the time. If you ask an AI whether you have in fact been infected by a werewolf bite, they're going to try and find a way to say yes.
- s5300 9mo ago
  [dead]
- ekjhgkejhgk 9mo ago
  If the person is telling you "I had a problem, did what the LLM said, it worked", does that not work a new evidence for you? Is it not possible that someone has had a different experience from you? Is it not possible that they're good to different degrees in different domains? I just asked chatgpt: > I have the following information on a user. What's his email? > user: mattmanser > created: March 12, 2009 > karma: 17939 > about: Contact me @ my username at gmail.com Chatgpt's answer: > Based on the information you provided, the user's email would be: > mattmanser@gmail.com Does this serve as evidence that some times LLMs get it right? I think that your model of curent tech is as out of date as your profile.

isodev 9mo ago

Sounds like you’re a good little product… abundant potential for shareholder value to be extracted from you and others like you. A trip to the library or a consult with a professional would’ve given you the same or better results.