this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
112 points (97.5% liked)

United Kingdom

4108 readers
239 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DonPiano@feddit.org 12 points 2 months ago (21 children)

They need to lose their licenses.

Everyone anywhere using one on the job should be fired, but medical personnel is endangering people.

[–] mannycalavera 20 points 2 months ago (8 children)

The best use of AI at the moment is to act as a tool to quickly search and present data quicker than humanly possible. Not to act upon the findings blindly.

It's not as easy to say anyone using AI should be fired. There needs to be a more nuanced approach to this. It wholly depends on what the GP did with the information it presented.

An example: back in the day GPs had a huge book of knowledge they would defer to that was peer researched and therefore trusted. If you came in with an odd symptom they'd spend time (often in front of you) flipping through the book to find that elusive disease they read about that one time at university. Later that knowledge moved to a traditional search engine. Why wouldn't you now use AI to make that search faster? The AI can easily be trained on this same corpus of knowledge.

Of course the GP should double check what they are being told. But simply using AI is not the problem you make it out to be. If you have a corpus of knowledge and the GP uses this in a dangerous way then the GP should be fired. But you don't then burn the book they found this information from.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Indeed. GPs have been doing this for a long time. It's nothing new, and expecting every GP to know every single ailment that humanity has ever experienced, to recall it quickly, and immediately know the course of action to take, is unreasonable. They are only human.

Like you say, if they're blindly following a generic ChatGPT instance trained on whatever crap it's scraped from the internet, then that's bad.

If they're aiding their search using an LLM that has been trained on a good medical dataset, then taking that and looking more into it, then there's no issue.

People have become so reactionary to LLMs and other AI stuff. It seems there's a "omg it's so cool everybody should use it to the max. Let's blindly trust it!" camp and a "it's awful and shouldn't exist, burn it all! No algorithms or machine learning anywhere. New tech is bad!"

Both camps are just as stupid. There's zero nuance in the discussion about this stuff, and it's tiring.

[–] mannycalavera 3 points 2 months ago

Exactly. Love the username BTW.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)