Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • Are there metrics for whether LLM diagnosis accuracy is improving? Anecdotally doctor friends says it's more reliable then their worst colleagues, which I'm sure their worst colleague insinuate the same about them.
    by maxglute
  • As a doctor I hope it still allows me to get up to speed on latest treatments for rare diseases that I see once every 10 years. It saves me a lot of time rather than having to dig through all the new information since I last encountered a rare disease.
    by uslic001
  • I assume you are reading the sources rather than relying solely on the AI summaries.
    by catlifeonmars
  • i don't think it's stopped providing said information, it's just now outlined in their usage policies that medical and legal advice is a "disallowed" use of ChatGPT
    by bstsb
  • So basically all white collar jobs are lobbying to gatekeep their profession even from AI, meanwhile the stupid engineers who made AI put zero effort to not shoot themselves in the foot, and now they are crying about low wages if they found a job in the first place.

    AI could effectively do most legal and medical work, and you can make a human do the final decision-making if that's really the reason. In fact, I bet most lawyers and doctors are already using it in one way or another; after all, both are about reciting books and correlating things together. AI is definitely more efficient at that than any human. Meanwhile, the engineering work that requires critical thinking and deep understanding of the topic is allowed to be bombarded with all AI models. What about the cases where bad engineering will kill people? I am a firm believer that engineers are the most naive people who beg others to exploit them and treat them like shit. I don't even see administrative assistants crying about losing their jobs to AI; every other profession guards its workers, including blue collar, except the ‘smart’ engineers.

    by tamimio
  • Last year ChatGPT helped save my life from having a stroke. LLMs are incredibly beneficial in providing medical information and advice today.
    by adangert
  • Any reason you didn't just call your GP or even 911?
    by fukka42
  • >LLMs are incredibly beneficial...

    No, they can be. To state that they are, as an absolute, based on your sample size of one, especially with regard to other instances where ChatGPT has failed the user with serious physical results, is fallacious.

    I am glad that you are OK, but as another user suggested, it's nowhere near as consistently accurate as it needs to be in order to be anywhere near an adequate substitute for a call to a GP or 911.

    by jjulius
  • > LLMs are incredibly beneficial ... today.

    LLMs sometimes can be incredibly beneficial ... today

    LLMs sometimes can be incredibly harmful ... today

    Non-deterministic things aren't just one thing, they're whatever they happen to be in that particular moment.

    by oarsinsync
  • Hmm. So OpenAI doesn't care about other people's terms, copyrights or any sort of IP; but they get to have their own terms.
    by entropi
  • I don't understand this outrage. People put things on the internet for all to see but now you're mad someone saw it and made use of it.

    If you didn't want others to read your information you shouldn't have published it on the internet. That's all they're doing at the end of the day, reading it. They're not publishing it as their own, they just used publicly available data to train a model.

    It's quite the same as if I read an article and then tell someone about it. If I'm allowed to learn from your article then why isn't openai?

    Also the terms are just for liability. Nobody gives a shit what you use ChatGPT for, the only thing those terms do is prevent you from turning around and suing OpenAI after it blows up in your face.

    by sfn42
  • Welcome to the internet! Have a look around

    (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1BneeJTDcU)

    Another obligatory song named Jeff bezos by Bo Burnham (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI5w2QwdYik)

    C'mon Jeffrey you can do it! (I mean you can break half the internet with AWS us-east-1, but in all seriousness both songs are really nice lol)

    by sabatonfan
  • Controlling other people's things and gaining from the control is kind of the point of being a thief.
    by exasperaited
  • I wouldn't be surprised to see new products from OpenAI targeted specifically at doctors and/or lawyers. Forbidding them from using the regular ChatGPT with legal terms would be a good way to do price discrimination.
    by modeless
  • OpenEvidence is free for anyone with an NPI
    by bradydjohnson
  • I have seen "AI" in my Dr's office. They have been using it to summarize visits and write after visit notes.
    by mgr86
  • Read their paper on GDPval (https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04374). In section 3, it's quite clear that their marketing strategy is now "to cooperate with professionals" and augment them. (Which does not rule out replacing them later, when the regulatory situation is more appropriate, like AGI is already a well-accepted fact, if ever.) But this will take a lot of time and local presence which they do not have.
    by District5524
  • Definitely. And in the long run, that is the only way those occupations can operate. From that point, you are locked in to an AI dependency to operate.
    by mongol
  • I was wondering when they would start with the regulations.

    Next will be: you're allowed to use it, if your company/product is "HippocraticGPT"-certified, a bit like SOC or PCI compliance.

    This way they can craft an instance of GPT for your specific purposes (law, medicine, etc) and you know it's "safe" to use.

    This way they sell EE licenses, which is where the big $$$ are.

    by mk89
  • I think this would apply if they sought out government regulation that applies to all AI players, not just their own company.
    by liampulles
  • Or you'll need a prescription to be able to ask it health questions.
    by gblargg

  •   > Next will be: you're allowed to use it, if your company/product is "HippocraticGPT"-certified, a bit like SOC or PCI compliance.
    That's exactly how it should be. That's why one needs a license to practice medicine.

    I work with a company in this space. All the AI tools are for the professional to use - the patient never interacts with them. The inferred output (I prefer the word prediction) is only ever seen by a mental health professional.

    We reduce the professionals' workloads and help them be more efficient. But it's _not_ better care. That absolutely must be stressed. It is more _efficient_ care for the mental health practitioner and for society that can not produce enough mental health practitioners.

    by dotancohen
  • Wasn't there a recent OAI dev day in which they had some users come on stage and discuss how helpful ChatGPT was in parsing diagnoses from different doctors?

    I guess the legal risks were large enough to outweigh this

    by zelias
  • I'd wager it's probably more that there's an identifiable customer and specific product to be sold. Doctors, hospitals, EHR companies and insurers all are very interested in paying for a validated version of this thing.
    by fluidcruft
  • Article has since been updated for some clarity;

       >    Correction
    An earlier version of this story suggested OpenAI had ended medical and legal advice. However the company said "the model behaviour has also not changed." [0]

    [0] https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/article/chatgpt-users-cant-u...

    by sans_souse
  • Marketing masterpiece
    by odyssey7
  • I have seen more than once people using ChatGPT as a psychologist and psychiatrist and self diagnosing mental illnesses. It would be hilarious if it was not so disasterous. People with real questions get roped in by an enthusiastically confirming sycophantic model that will never question or push back, just confirm and lead on.

    Tbh, and I usually do not like this way of thought, but these are lawsuits waiting to happen.

    by PeterStuer
  • > I have seen more than once people using ChatGPT as a psychologist and psychiatrist and self diagnosing mental illnesses. It would be hilarious if it was not so disasterous.

    What is the disaster?

    by andsoitis
  • You’re absolutely right! Just given that behavior, I’d say there’s a pretty good chance that there is some real mental illness there.
    by stocksinsmocks
  • The model's default mode is to be helpful and agreeable, which is exactly the wrong dynamic when someone's dealing with mental health issues or looking for a diagnosis
    by SwtCyber