24 ms·
Nightmare because the AI is just generating a random text that fits the question.
by drw85 3mo ago
Nightmare because the AI is just generating a random text that fits the question.
- betaby 3mo agoI feel the same when visiting a doctor in Canada. In that 2 minutes I have with they in one appointment per year I hear a standard text.
- poszlem 3mo agoThis is a very peculiar use of the word "random".
- Legend2440 3mo agoThis is not a fair assessment of what AI is doing. Studies have found that newer reasoning AIs are about as good at diagnosing illness from a written description of symptoms as doctors are. Granted, it cannot actually examine a patient, so we're not replacing doctors anytime soon. But your view is obsolete. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adz4433 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adz4433
- Retric 3mo agoThey are using the “gold standard for the evaluation of expert medical computing systems” not a proxy for what a doctor actually does when diagnosing someone. It may have some utility after diagnosis, but this test doesn’t demonstrate utility for patients.
- snackerblues 3mo ago[flagged]
- microgpt 3mo agoBut I, SCP-426, am a toaster.
- d1sxeyes 3mo agoNot quite. An LLM generates text that would likely follow. The sky is… “blue”. A patient in pain with a bone protruding from their shin has a… “broken leg”. The more training data, the more questions it can answer with a reasonable degree of probability of accuracy. Throwing away a potentially useful analysis just because it’s probabilistic seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
- drw85 3mo agoBut for obvious cases like this, you don't need a second or first opinion. This case is about handing a 3D imaging result to a text predictor and hoping for a valid second opinion.
- d1sxeyes 3mo agoYes that’s my point. An LLM can clearly accurately predict obvious cases, so it’s reasonable to assume that it can predict less obvious cases with somewhat less accuracy. The real question is where’s the cut-off point between accuracy and utility. Remember: a second human opinion can also be wrong, and even a wrong opinion can still be useful (especially in medicine where differential diagnoses are a common practice - if the LLM gives you a useless opinion, you rule it out and move on). I don’t think it’s particularly unreasonable to think that an LLM would have enough literature, or enough reasoning ability, to be able to generate a plausible interpretation of the data. A human can then review and say either “yeah that’s clearly not the case here” or “hmm, actually that could explain it, maybe we should order another test”.