5 ms·

> and has the potential to debase shared reality. If only. What it actually has is the potential to debase the value of "AI." People will just eventually fig

> and has the potential to debase shared reality. If only. What it actually has is the potential to debase the value of "AI." People will just eventually figure out that these tools are garbage and stop relying on them. I consider that a positive outcome.

gretch 9mo ago
Every other source for information, including (or maybe especially) human experts can also make mistakes or hallucinate. The reason ppl go to LLMs for medical advice is because real doctors actually fuck up each and everyday. For clear, objective examples look up stories where surgeons leave things inside of patient bodies post op. Here’s one, and there many like it. https://abc13.com/amp/post/hospital-fined-after-surgeon-leaves-towel-inside-patient/1181131/ https://abc13.com/amp/post/hospital-fined-after-surgeon-leav...
- nathan_compton 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - themafia 9mo ago
    "Doing your own research" is back on the menu boys!
    - phatfish 9mo ago
      I'll insist the surgeon follows ChatGPTs plan for my operation next time I'm in theatre. By the end of the year AI will be actually doing the surgery, when you look at the recent advancements in robotic hands, right bros?
  - gretch 9mo ago
    Yup make up something I didn't say to take my argument to a logical extreme so you can feel smug. "totally disregard" yeah right, that's what I said
  - dang 9mo ago
    Please don't use quotation marks to make it look like you're quoting someone when you aren't. That's an internet snark trope, and we're trying to avoid that kind of thing here. You're welcome to make your substantive points thoughtfully, of course. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
WheatMillington 9mo ago
People used to tell me the same about Wikipedia.
- themafia 9mo ago
  That it could "debase shared reality?" Or that using it as a single source of truth was fraught with difficulties? Has the latter condition actually changed?
  - WheatMillington 9mo ago
    That it's a garbage data source that could not be relied upon.

gretch 9mo ago

Every other source for information, including (or maybe especially) human experts can also make mistakes or hallucinate. The reason ppl go to LLMs for medical advice is because real doctors actually fuck up each and everyday. For clear, objective examples look up stories where surgeons leave things inside of patient bodies post op. Here’s one, and there many like it. https://abc13.com/amp/post/hospital-fined-after-surgeon-leaves-towel-inside-patient/1181131/ https://abc13.com/amp/post/hospital-fined-after-surgeon-leav...

nathan_compton 9mo ago
[flagged]
- themafia 9mo ago
  "Doing your own research" is back on the menu boys!
  - phatfish 9mo ago
    I'll insist the surgeon follows ChatGPTs plan for my operation next time I'm in theatre. By the end of the year AI will be actually doing the surgery, when you look at the recent advancements in robotic hands, right bros?
- gretch 9mo ago
  Yup make up something I didn't say to take my argument to a logical extreme so you can feel smug. "totally disregard" yeah right, that's what I said
- dang 9mo ago
  Please don't use quotation marks to make it look like you're quoting someone when you aren't. That's an internet snark trope, and we're trying to avoid that kind of thing here. You're welcome to make your substantive points thoughtfully, of course. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

WheatMillington 9mo ago

People used to tell me the same about Wikipedia.

themafia 9mo ago
That it could "debase shared reality?" Or that using it as a single source of truth was fraught with difficulties? Has the latter condition actually changed?
- WheatMillington 9mo ago
  That it's a garbage data source that could not be relied upon.