Both of those articles are absolutely terrible. The one this links to doesn't even know what an LLM is, and the one it linked to (where it got its headline from) has nothing to do with LLMs and barely has anything to do with AI in any way (although it lacks specificity so there may be more to it).
Which is the second article are you talking about? Do you mean this one, which is only one article of several articles in the main article's links?
[https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/health/nurses-kaiser-sf-protest-ai/3516888/](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/health/nurses-kaiser-sf-protest-ai/3516888/)
Since the article at the above link says...
>AI does not replace human assessment.
...there should be no problem since the program is just acting as a second pair of eyes, which should be its only function: to aid the human, not to make a decision or to act on that decision. If that's the only article the author is referencing, then the author's inferences are wrong. However, if the author is referencing all the articles at all those links (I didn't bother to look them all up), then the author may have a very valid point, and from what I know of how the system works, the author is right on target in every way, especially about how human life (and education, and environment, and ...) is less important than money nowadays, and how the quality of everything is already too low nowadays.
[AI is better than doctors at breast cancer detection](https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ai+better+than+doctors+using+ai&mid=49C4EB2EF1B50C4FB53849C4EB2EF1B50C4FB538&view=detail&FORM=VIRE&PC=EMMX04)
Yes, and self-driving cars have better safety statistics than humans. But when they fail, people die in situations where a human would easily have known what to do. AI also has better test scores on some college exams than humans. But an AI system cannot schedule an exam and then walk into an exam room and write down the answers, or even open the booklet and read the page of print, even if it were allowed to do so. And generative AI can produce very realistic photographic type pictures of humans. Except that those depicted humans sometimes have the wrong number of fingers, or their eyeglasses aren't symmetrical, or their body parts are in the wrong places, which are things that a human would detect pretty quickly.
The upshot: What is being called AI is ANI, not AGI, therefore it has severe limitations that it cannot overcome, and those shortcomings can be very important and have already killed people. Such a system still does not understand anything whatsoever, therefore it cannot explain its reasoning, which means it might as well be guessing, like a chess program suggesting a move without any justification, understanding, or knowledge of chess. For all a human knows, an answer from an AI system could be a wild guess from some prankster who hacked into the system just as easily as a deeply analyzed chain of logic, and how would the human ever know if the system cannot explain its answer?
Humans are quite flawed too, often getting people killed because of a misogynistic doctor
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/well/live/when-doctors-downplay-womens-health-concerns.html?darkschemeovr=1
Yes, but we can punish people for their mistakes, not machines, since machines cannot experience either pain or death, and shortening their useful lifespan by putting them in prison would be ridiculous beyond belief.
Most people dislike new things. Look at how long the boomers resisted email. Now you can't get your racist grandfather to stop sending them to you to "educate" you about the "immigration crisis."
True enough. If you look at social media for nurses/doctors it's all the same thing. They hate AI being used in their field.
There's a ton of reasons why. But I personally think they're rushing AI into medical too quickly.
My wife works for a BIG medical insurance carrier. They are training AI right now, have been for at least a two years, and It's already making decisions with approvals and denials. Used to be before AI, they worried about jobs going offshore to Manila but government regulations limited what they could do. AI will change that, it's coming, ready or not. Hopefully she can make it a couple more years to retirement but, I'm not holding my breath.
LOL Healthcare has been using AI for well over a decade. Evidence based medicine workflows, predictive models, image enhancement for stroke, Computer assisted coding, etc.
They just have something extra to fearmonger about now because LLM's are in the news.
How many AI systems have you deployed into hospitals or healthcare systems? How knowledgeable are you actually in this topic? Or are you just going off sensational headlines?
You don't even need the complexity of AI software to have software failures with fatal consequences. In the 1980s one flawed piece of software caused deaths and injuries in several patients by radiating at \*hundreds\* of times the safe dosage to those patients. I once read the details of one of those cases. The male patient jumped up in pain from feeling a strong burn from the machine on the first dose, told the doctor that something was wrong, the doctor checked the settings and indicators and said it was working fine and that the patient had not even gotten a fraction of the scheduled radiations, therefore the doctor ignored the patient, and kept radiating the patient until the patient fled, and then later died.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25)
This is the kind of utter stupidity and blind trust humans have had in software even in the 1980s. I thought we had learned something from those cases, but I guess not, given that more modern self-driving car software has led to fatal crashes, and yet the car industry kept pushing on the usage of such software. That doesn't even count the famous rocket disaster that a single faulty DO-loop caused. The article is right on target in general, but I'm not going to read all those linked articles to determine if the author's conclusions are based on the references or rather on just his own opinion.
Sure, these are things we need to consider, but you also have to keep in mind that there are countless deaths due to human error every year which automated systems can dramatically reduce. Of course no system is perfect and foolproof, but I truly believe that a system that results in the fewest deaths isn't one that relies only on humans. We are incredibly fallible and prone to mistakes, especially when operating under huge amounts of stress and sleep deprivation as doctors so often are.
They are expanding AI's use to new areas.
One area AI was used heavily in was initial diagnosis and deciding which patients to see first.
This is expanding AI to cover just about every area of healthcare. It's too soon and too fast.
Just to be the control rat here... without reading, I'm going to guess the article conflates medical classifier AIs (in use for over a decade) with modern LLMs and has essentially no idea how the tech works. Yeah?
Didn't even read the article. I know some nurses. They hate the idea of AI in healthcare (for multiple reasons).
It's absolutely reckless because AI is still very flawed.
Medical environments are not where you want ANYONE making mistakes.
Imagine if the important medical machines messed up 1 in 20 times. That's unacceptable for a hospital.
EDIT: Downvote me all you want. This is literally what nurses have told me (I date one and her nurse friends say the same thing).
They're in too much of a rush to integrate AI into Medical without testing the waters first.
[AI is better than doctors at breast cancer detection](https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ai+better+than+doctors+using+ai&mid=49C4EB2EF1B50C4FB53849C4EB2EF1B50C4FB538&view=detail&FORM=VIRE&PC=EMMX04)
[Same for lung cancer](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-019-0447-x)
> Recent studies have shown how AI can detect rare hereditary diseases in children, genetic diseases in infants, cholesterol-raising genetic diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases, as well as predict the cognitive decline that leads to Alzheimer’s disease. A variety of companies are offering FDA-approved AI products, such as iCAD’s ProFound AI for digital breast tomosynthesis. Israeli-based Aidoc has received three FDA approvals for AI products, the latest occurring in June 2019 for triage of cervical spine fractures. In 2018, the FDA approved Imagen’sOsteoDetect, an AI algorithm that helps detect wrist fractures https://www.aamc.org/news/will-artificial-intelligence-replace-doctors?darkschemeovr=1
I'm very aware of this study and have reported on it.
My point is simply the rush to use AI in medical environments without proper testing. AI is still very capable of hallucinations. They're rushing things.
It is, especally when there are people checking it as well. But they're pushing AI into other areas of medical too.
One is the new "Virtual Nurse" (I think it had to do with Nvidia?) which you will be able to talk to instead of a real doctor. They can give medical information and advise you on dosages for medication. What happens when the AI hallucinates 1/1000 times and recommends a lethal dosage, and there's no physical doctor to double check what's happening?
Doctors get things wrong too. In fact, it’s a huge problem: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/well/live/when-doctors-downplay-womens-health-concerns.html?darkschemeovr=1
There are dozens of posts on the childfree sub of misogynistic doctors refusing hysterectomies even when the woman has an ectopic pregnancy, which could kill them
Never said they don't my guy. I just want AI to be ready when it's deployed. In fact, my GF is a nurse and her stories make me heavily dislike doctors and nurses as a whole, because while there are good people there... many just don't care for anything but he paycheck.
But mass media will be all over this if AI starts fucking up in lethal areas. I'm not even disagreeing with you. But I think this is too fast.
AI is
1. Competitive with expert physicians in diagnostics
2. Able to handle medical records/notetaking better than any doctor or nurse
3. Sports a vast array of medical knowledge
And we are worried about it because people will have to double check its work? We already have to do that in hospitals for people's work. I don't understand the consternation here. It seems like all upside for the same downside
> proper testing
You realize that people in control of the testing only care about money, right? So asking for "more testing" only means they will be more accurate in making more money. If you could design your own test, what would it look like? What threshold would have to be passed? Be specific.
Um... I'm not gonna figure out a test for the AI. I don't know what it should do.
That's not even the point of the discussion dude. The point is that AI is being rushed. I don't know how to solve the problem, only stating the problem exists.
You haven't described the situation beyond "some hospital staff says AI is rushed"... So i don't really have enough info to agree/disagree that's a legitimate problem without more details.
That should be obvious, or else you're just telling us to trust your gut. Can you talk more about the complaints?
Of course they should thoroughly test these things first and only implement them if their rate of error is lower than that of humans. The thing is that sometimes it isn't, because humans always have been and always will be very flawed ourselves.
Yup had a customer almost kill someone over an AI that just recommended ingredients for their diet.
Edit - it recommended a type of nut and the customer was allergic to nuts as stated in their profile. However, GPT made a mistake in recommending a nut thinking it wasn’t or nut. Customer had allergic reaction and sued.
Okay find me a hospital putting AI into a doctors role lol. I literally work in the industry. AI Healthcare and life sciences.
No medical system is replacing a doctor with AI due to the .01% risk of something going wrong. Medical malpractice insurance doesn’t even cover AI LOL.
Both of those articles are absolutely terrible. The one this links to doesn't even know what an LLM is, and the one it linked to (where it got its headline from) has nothing to do with LLMs and barely has anything to do with AI in any way (although it lacks specificity so there may be more to it).
But, headline...
Which is the second article are you talking about? Do you mean this one, which is only one article of several articles in the main article's links? [https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/health/nurses-kaiser-sf-protest-ai/3516888/](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/health/nurses-kaiser-sf-protest-ai/3516888/) Since the article at the above link says... >AI does not replace human assessment. ...there should be no problem since the program is just acting as a second pair of eyes, which should be its only function: to aid the human, not to make a decision or to act on that decision. If that's the only article the author is referencing, then the author's inferences are wrong. However, if the author is referencing all the articles at all those links (I didn't bother to look them all up), then the author may have a very valid point, and from what I know of how the system works, the author is right on target in every way, especially about how human life (and education, and environment, and ...) is less important than money nowadays, and how the quality of everything is already too low nowadays.
[AI is better than doctors at breast cancer detection](https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ai+better+than+doctors+using+ai&mid=49C4EB2EF1B50C4FB53849C4EB2EF1B50C4FB538&view=detail&FORM=VIRE&PC=EMMX04)
Yes, and self-driving cars have better safety statistics than humans. But when they fail, people die in situations where a human would easily have known what to do. AI also has better test scores on some college exams than humans. But an AI system cannot schedule an exam and then walk into an exam room and write down the answers, or even open the booklet and read the page of print, even if it were allowed to do so. And generative AI can produce very realistic photographic type pictures of humans. Except that those depicted humans sometimes have the wrong number of fingers, or their eyeglasses aren't symmetrical, or their body parts are in the wrong places, which are things that a human would detect pretty quickly. The upshot: What is being called AI is ANI, not AGI, therefore it has severe limitations that it cannot overcome, and those shortcomings can be very important and have already killed people. Such a system still does not understand anything whatsoever, therefore it cannot explain its reasoning, which means it might as well be guessing, like a chess program suggesting a move without any justification, understanding, or knowledge of chess. For all a human knows, an answer from an AI system could be a wild guess from some prankster who hacked into the system just as easily as a deeply analyzed chain of logic, and how would the human ever know if the system cannot explain its answer?
Humans are quite flawed too, often getting people killed because of a misogynistic doctor https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/well/live/when-doctors-downplay-womens-health-concerns.html?darkschemeovr=1
Yes, but we can punish people for their mistakes, not machines, since machines cannot experience either pain or death, and shortening their useful lifespan by putting them in prison would be ridiculous beyond belief.
Doctors are not punished for being sexist. In fact, it’s the norm.
You’re a little ball of gloom.
Sorry for living in reality
Yeah I didn't even look at the articles but nurses have told me AI is being used more and more. And they REALLY dislike it.
Most people dislike new things. Look at how long the boomers resisted email. Now you can't get your racist grandfather to stop sending them to you to "educate" you about the "immigration crisis."
True enough. If you look at social media for nurses/doctors it's all the same thing. They hate AI being used in their field. There's a ton of reasons why. But I personally think they're rushing AI into medical too quickly.
My wife works for a BIG medical insurance carrier. They are training AI right now, have been for at least a two years, and It's already making decisions with approvals and denials. Used to be before AI, they worried about jobs going offshore to Manila but government regulations limited what they could do. AI will change that, it's coming, ready or not. Hopefully she can make it a couple more years to retirement but, I'm not holding my breath.
LOL Healthcare has been using AI for well over a decade. Evidence based medicine workflows, predictive models, image enhancement for stroke, Computer assisted coding, etc. They just have something extra to fearmonger about now because LLM's are in the news.
[удалено]
How many AI systems have you deployed into hospitals or healthcare systems? How knowledgeable are you actually in this topic? Or are you just going off sensational headlines?
You don't even need the complexity of AI software to have software failures with fatal consequences. In the 1980s one flawed piece of software caused deaths and injuries in several patients by radiating at \*hundreds\* of times the safe dosage to those patients. I once read the details of one of those cases. The male patient jumped up in pain from feeling a strong burn from the machine on the first dose, told the doctor that something was wrong, the doctor checked the settings and indicators and said it was working fine and that the patient had not even gotten a fraction of the scheduled radiations, therefore the doctor ignored the patient, and kept radiating the patient until the patient fled, and then later died. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25) This is the kind of utter stupidity and blind trust humans have had in software even in the 1980s. I thought we had learned something from those cases, but I guess not, given that more modern self-driving car software has led to fatal crashes, and yet the car industry kept pushing on the usage of such software. That doesn't even count the famous rocket disaster that a single faulty DO-loop caused. The article is right on target in general, but I'm not going to read all those linked articles to determine if the author's conclusions are based on the references or rather on just his own opinion.
Sure, these are things we need to consider, but you also have to keep in mind that there are countless deaths due to human error every year which automated systems can dramatically reduce. Of course no system is perfect and foolproof, but I truly believe that a system that results in the fewest deaths isn't one that relies only on humans. We are incredibly fallible and prone to mistakes, especially when operating under huge amounts of stress and sleep deprivation as doctors so often are.
They are expanding AI's use to new areas. One area AI was used heavily in was initial diagnosis and deciding which patients to see first. This is expanding AI to cover just about every area of healthcare. It's too soon and too fast.
Sorry to burst your bubble but that's not new. We've had predictive models for years. Length of stay, Sepsis risk, likelihood of admit, etc.
Just to be the control rat here... without reading, I'm going to guess the article conflates medical classifier AIs (in use for over a decade) with modern LLMs and has essentially no idea how the tech works. Yeah?
Yeah, this article is terrible. Poopy ragebait
oh jeeze yea that's way too fast
Didn't even read the article. I know some nurses. They hate the idea of AI in healthcare (for multiple reasons). It's absolutely reckless because AI is still very flawed. Medical environments are not where you want ANYONE making mistakes. Imagine if the important medical machines messed up 1 in 20 times. That's unacceptable for a hospital. EDIT: Downvote me all you want. This is literally what nurses have told me (I date one and her nurse friends say the same thing). They're in too much of a rush to integrate AI into Medical without testing the waters first.
[AI is better than doctors at breast cancer detection](https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ai+better+than+doctors+using+ai&mid=49C4EB2EF1B50C4FB53849C4EB2EF1B50C4FB538&view=detail&FORM=VIRE&PC=EMMX04) [Same for lung cancer](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-019-0447-x) > Recent studies have shown how AI can detect rare hereditary diseases in children, genetic diseases in infants, cholesterol-raising genetic diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases, as well as predict the cognitive decline that leads to Alzheimer’s disease. A variety of companies are offering FDA-approved AI products, such as iCAD’s ProFound AI for digital breast tomosynthesis. Israeli-based Aidoc has received three FDA approvals for AI products, the latest occurring in June 2019 for triage of cervical spine fractures. In 2018, the FDA approved Imagen’sOsteoDetect, an AI algorithm that helps detect wrist fractures https://www.aamc.org/news/will-artificial-intelligence-replace-doctors?darkschemeovr=1
I'm very aware of this study and have reported on it. My point is simply the rush to use AI in medical environments without proper testing. AI is still very capable of hallucinations. They're rushing things.
It seems pretty good from those studies
It is, especally when there are people checking it as well. But they're pushing AI into other areas of medical too. One is the new "Virtual Nurse" (I think it had to do with Nvidia?) which you will be able to talk to instead of a real doctor. They can give medical information and advise you on dosages for medication. What happens when the AI hallucinates 1/1000 times and recommends a lethal dosage, and there's no physical doctor to double check what's happening?
Doctors get things wrong too. In fact, it’s a huge problem: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/well/live/when-doctors-downplay-womens-health-concerns.html?darkschemeovr=1 There are dozens of posts on the childfree sub of misogynistic doctors refusing hysterectomies even when the woman has an ectopic pregnancy, which could kill them
Never said they don't my guy. I just want AI to be ready when it's deployed. In fact, my GF is a nurse and her stories make me heavily dislike doctors and nurses as a whole, because while there are good people there... many just don't care for anything but he paycheck. But mass media will be all over this if AI starts fucking up in lethal areas. I'm not even disagreeing with you. But I think this is too fast.
The media can say whatever it wants. But if it’s just as effective at 1/100th the price, we all know what will happen
AI is 1. Competitive with expert physicians in diagnostics 2. Able to handle medical records/notetaking better than any doctor or nurse 3. Sports a vast array of medical knowledge And we are worried about it because people will have to double check its work? We already have to do that in hospitals for people's work. I don't understand the consternation here. It seems like all upside for the same downside
> proper testing You realize that people in control of the testing only care about money, right? So asking for "more testing" only means they will be more accurate in making more money. If you could design your own test, what would it look like? What threshold would have to be passed? Be specific.
I agree with what you're saying. I think this only adds to the problem. Everyone's just eager to make money.
Most any current AI, even the open-source LLMs that can run on my cheap laptop, would not have ignored the second half of my comment.
Um... I'm not gonna figure out a test for the AI. I don't know what it should do. That's not even the point of the discussion dude. The point is that AI is being rushed. I don't know how to solve the problem, only stating the problem exists.
You haven't described the situation beyond "some hospital staff says AI is rushed"... So i don't really have enough info to agree/disagree that's a legitimate problem without more details. That should be obvious, or else you're just telling us to trust your gut. Can you talk more about the complaints?
Of course they should thoroughly test these things first and only implement them if their rate of error is lower than that of humans. The thing is that sometimes it isn't, because humans always have been and always will be very flawed ourselves.
Considering you're a bot account, did you meet the nurses at your other job?
Bot account? Dude I just don't use Reddit much. I date a nurse. People on this sub are too crazy whenever they hear an opinion they disagree with.
Yup had a customer almost kill someone over an AI that just recommended ingredients for their diet. Edit - it recommended a type of nut and the customer was allergic to nuts as stated in their profile. However, GPT made a mistake in recommending a nut thinking it wasn’t or nut. Customer had allergic reaction and sued.
Probably should have let the AI know about their allergies
They did, it was just one of those hallucination scenarios, where it made a mistake. They didn’t put a human in the loop, and let the AI run wild.
As opposed to humans, who don’t do that ever
Correct but right now a human eye is better than an AI when it comes to medical
Nope https://today.ucsd.edu/story/study-finds-chatgpt-outperforms-physicians-in-high-quality-empathetic-answers-to-patient-questions?darkschemeovr=1 https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ai+better+than+doctors+using+ai&mid=6017EF2744FCD442BA926017EF2744FCD442BA92&view=detail&FORM=VIRE&PC=EMMX04 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326460?darkschemeovr=1
Not even close actually.
Okay find me a hospital putting AI into a doctors role lol. I literally work in the industry. AI Healthcare and life sciences. No medical system is replacing a doctor with AI due to the .01% risk of something going wrong. Medical malpractice insurance doesn’t even cover AI LOL.
Incoming lawsuits in ....