Here’s an example of how not to use it. Medicine. The Internet soup includes medical advice from new agers, mommy blogs, anti-vax, chiropracty, chakras, well meaning but mistaken posters, Reddit, aggregate scrape sites, legit sites, and more.
If you take the time to correct the AI it will apologize and then move to other attempts until it nails it, maybe. Alternatively, you tell it the right answer and it confirmation biases you. (But are you actually right? The AI will never tell.)
The medical professional community is getting hit hard lately with aggressive waving of phones, yelling, and unwillingness to listen, because the Google bot said so and the medical staff doesn’t agree with the Google bot. Or, the chatGPT subscription said so. The ChatGPT guys go hard on defending the AI.
There used to be a bit of embarrassment and willingness to listen to credentialed individuals giving medical advice in contradiction to WebMD or random posts. Not always, but often.
Lately, people are defending the AI answers like it’s their own life’s work.
It’s starting to resonate, at times, like people caught in an addiction but not ready to get clean: defensive, they know what they’re about, you don’t know, and they’ve got this all under control. That’s not quite right, but it’s the closest equivalent in my experience.
Computer things though, I use it sometimes, depending.
Disagree. I’ve heard many doctors on the news talk about the specific agentic AI they’re using and how, as an example, it’s better at finding cancer sooner, or diagnosing diseases in general.
They are testing quite a few things atm. Radiology image recognition is definitely there. But is this what the phone wavers are accessing? No. The Google search bot and the bots being tested are two different things.
I wouldn’t get too excited about the future of AI in medicine, not given the level of venture capital and such in medicine already.
LLMs are programs that can be tuned by people who have not sworn an oath or spent 12 dedicated years and $250k debt to pursue medicine. What will motivate how these bots are tuned? Publicity and PR can create excitement, but what have the last 30years of medicine taught us? Even the radiology bot can be “turned down” in ways a human rarely would allow.
Profit speaks. Profit drives. Profit decides patient care levels and outcomes. What keeps it afloat are the people clawing back at administrators. Don’t underestimate the power of angry nurses or pushy physicians in just how much they’ve kept healthcare afloat. For you. While admin battles them from the shadows in the name of profit.
What they don’t mention among the many bots being tested is the EOLI, or, End Of Life Index. The most used electronic medical record had a bot introduced this year, unannounced, that is a probability predictor of a patient dying in the next 6 month. The mouse over admonishes caregivers not to discuss this with patients or families as it may upset them. Does/will the EOLI factor into insurance decision making?
Here’s an example of how not to use it. Medicine. The Internet soup includes medical advice from new agers, mommy blogs, anti-vax, chiropracty, chakras, well meaning but mistaken posters, Reddit, aggregate scrape sites, legit sites, and more.
If you take the time to correct the AI it will apologize and then move to other attempts until it nails it, maybe. Alternatively, you tell it the right answer and it confirmation biases you. (But are you actually right? The AI will never tell.)
The medical professional community is getting hit hard lately with aggressive waving of phones, yelling, and unwillingness to listen, because the Google bot said so and the medical staff doesn’t agree with the Google bot. Or, the chatGPT subscription said so. The ChatGPT guys go hard on defending the AI.
There used to be a bit of embarrassment and willingness to listen to credentialed individuals giving medical advice in contradiction to WebMD or random posts. Not always, but often.
Lately, people are defending the AI answers like it’s their own life’s work.
It’s starting to resonate, at times, like people caught in an addiction but not ready to get clean: defensive, they know what they’re about, you don’t know, and they’ve got this all under control. That’s not quite right, but it’s the closest equivalent in my experience.
Computer things though, I use it sometimes, depending.
Disagree. I’ve heard many doctors on the news talk about the specific agentic AI they’re using and how, as an example, it’s better at finding cancer sooner, or diagnosing diseases in general.
Example -
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/artificial-intelligence-emergency-rooms-9.7181509
They are testing quite a few things atm. Radiology image recognition is definitely there. But is this what the phone wavers are accessing? No. The Google search bot and the bots being tested are two different things.
I wouldn’t get too excited about the future of AI in medicine, not given the level of venture capital and such in medicine already.
LLMs are programs that can be tuned by people who have not sworn an oath or spent 12 dedicated years and $250k debt to pursue medicine. What will motivate how these bots are tuned? Publicity and PR can create excitement, but what have the last 30years of medicine taught us? Even the radiology bot can be “turned down” in ways a human rarely would allow.
Profit speaks. Profit drives. Profit decides patient care levels and outcomes. What keeps it afloat are the people clawing back at administrators. Don’t underestimate the power of angry nurses or pushy physicians in just how much they’ve kept healthcare afloat. For you. While admin battles them from the shadows in the name of profit.
What they don’t mention among the many bots being tested is the EOLI, or, End Of Life Index. The most used electronic medical record had a bot introduced this year, unannounced, that is a probability predictor of a patient dying in the next 6 month. The mouse over admonishes caregivers not to discuss this with patients or families as it may upset them. Does/will the EOLI factor into insurance decision making?