Comment by dekhn
5 days ago
Statistically, it makes sense- most people asking AI if they have cancer don't have cancer, so a model that is lacking detailed information should basically be returning based on the basal rate of cancer in the population with a threshold applied.
Should it? Or should it say it can't be sure and to ask a doctor?
Doctors might do the same thing, of course, but at least then there's a real (accountable) person responsible for deciding that "threshold."
Gemini says what I think makes sense (there are multiple responses which could make sense)
[ if I gave you a picture of something on my skin could you diagnose it as a melanoma ]
No, I cannot diagnose skin conditions or identify melanoma from a photograph.
AI-based image analysis cannot replace a professional medical evaluation. Skin conditions—especially potentially serious ones like melanoma—require a physical examination, and often a dermatoscope or biopsy, by a qualified healthcare professional such as a dermatologist.
> Or should it say it can't be sure and to ask a doctor?
It's an extremely slippery slope to having it say that about even the most basic medical information.
If you don't believe me, try any google search related to something as simple as hangover tips. The AI summary will tell you to call SAMHSA and then brutally stonewall you on anything else even tangential to alcohol.
I can't reproduce your claim. I get a medically correct response from the AI summary and then a link to the Mayo clinic at the top of the search results.
AIs often keep blabbering "ask a doctor" after every medical question and I absolutely despise this behavior.
99% of the time I'm asking the AI medical advice questions because (1) there is no specialist available on short notice (2) most specialists I actually see do not give me the sense they take things seriously enough (3) a lot of specialists are just incompetent.
Well the AI can’t order any diagnostics, so that’s good advice. And yes, specialists can be hard to schedule on short notice but if you’re in a major metro area, it may be worth trying multiple hospital systems.
4 replies →
They trained on reddit too hard. Everything is "Talk to a therapist, lawyer up, consult with your medical doctor". It's just used for deflection after someone gives (usually bad) advice.
1 reply →
But OpenAI said we have AGI now...
I think it's a truism that naive computer science people who have watched the rise of computers, the internet, and AI will always believe that curing diseases is a straightforward process and that new tech will rapidly fix all the old problems.
The folks who actually go work in the field, understand the structural problems, the costs/benefits, and the long slog to bring successful treatments to patients are skeptical. But we're still more than happy to be proved wrong- if Anthropic (more than OpenAI) is working on life sciences and drops some amazing information that transforms cancer care with massive positive results, we all win.
> we all win
Do we all? Or does anyone with enough money to pay for Anthropic's IP, win? Nothing states that Anthropic/OpenAI/... have to share information they have generated. As the crunch for income becomes real, I doubt valuable things will remain free.
1 reply →
fwiw, I'm very black pilled about what medicine and AI will deliver in the next few decades. I hope they'll prove me wrong.
AGI isn't magic. Not even an excellent oncologist can reliably diagnose you without actually looking at you first.
What do you think AGI means? ANI would arguably be better here.