Prove_your_argument

The thing that LLMs are great at is taking a LOT of datapoints and coming to a conclusion based on all of them.

Humans can look at a few but get overwhelmed.

if you feed a ton of diagnostic data including past incidents, blood test, perhaps DNA tests, i'm pretty sure LLMs will be able to better figure out a diagnosis than a doctor using traditional methods.

When users self-diagnose, they're often wrong, because they don't know what the fuck they're doing. Garbage in garbage out regardless of the entity trying to process it.

This study is one that put doctors against a LLM, 90% accuracy for chatgpt, 74% for doctors not using LLM tool. https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2024/12/03/ai-diagnosis-ec

So chatgpt wrong 10% of the time, doctor wrong 26% of the time. 2.6x worse failure rate by real docs... for that one anyway. The better the data for chatgpt, the better it's diagnosis. Humans probably won't get much better, but LLMs? I bet they will.

We're likely to have an intermediary step where HCPs handle the symptoms, testing, etc and then it's fed into a medical focused LLM. The LLM will output potential diagnosis for a doctor to review for sanity, even though the doctor is probably less accurate it will make everyone feel better, and then the doc will slap a diagnosis on their profile.

LLMs will be infinitely better than humans at figuring out drug interactions (it's just a big fucking database), allergies (they can't forget you're allergic to NSAIDs like my wife is, and who routinely has been given them by HCPs who fuck up.) Who knows what else.

Nah, I just consistently put more effort in than you clowns.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11263899/

ChatGPT4 rated higher than physicians at taking text input and getting a diagnosis in that study.

Here's a completely different one. 90% accuracy for chatgpt, 74% for doctors not using LLM tool. https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2024/12/03/ai-diagnosis-ec

So chatgpt wrong 10% of the time, doctor wrong 26% of the time. 2.6x worse failure rate by real docs... for that one anyway.

It's just a matter of time for medical diagnosis to be done by LLMs first, and then simply be reviewed by a doc for sanity because humans "don't trust" technology.

So here, you literally just prove you're an asshat, and I brought data.

Do you have any evidence that doctors are superior to LLMs? I haven't seen any of it. :)

If you post on reddit asking for advice, and you die after following the advice despite there being no claims of anyone being a doctor, who does someone sue?

IMO shouldn't need disclaimers stating that absolutely everyone and everything is not a lawyer, is not a HCP, etc, etc. It's just a given.

If you google something and just blindly do what the first result says, do you have a case against them too?

There are no arguments otherwise here.

I'm not here to write beautifully crafted arguments when no one has yet to disagree.

I've literally only ever used the web version on windows. It works fine, so what's the problem? what functionality is being lost?

More ram usage? oh no! I couldn't possibly have free Ram left!

These offers must have a stipulation of you hitting a grand slam and accomplishing General AGI or automating white collar work such as software development completely and entirely without any user intervention and without any errors or hallucination whatsoever.

They aren't going to pay this kind of money for you to just show up and try your best. It must be tied to a performance goal that is all but unattainable but if done would provide trillions of dollars to the ownership class.

One thing is to provide a flat photo, another is to provide close detailed biometric readings of your face where you're effectively providing a 3d image detailing the contours of your body, that could prehaps be duplicated to unlock faceID but absolutely generates information that can be used to identify you from surveillance video accurately, more accurately than flat photos alone.

You don't need to provide an address, accurate DOB, or really talk about anything deep in chats. Linking your name/address/dob to a general dating site isn't particularly concerning for me since all of this information has been leaked over and over and over again from various 'highly secure' businesses like healthcare companies, experian etc. Those leaks don't have biometrics like fingerprints or facial geometry though. No reason to have even more PII submitted to these shithole companies that will let themselves get breached because hiring tech security is pricey and doesn't add revenue to the bottom line.

Really? catfishing is this much of a risk that we'd rather eliminate privacy completely and provide biometric data that tinder can then sell to whoever?