[otistravel]

The most impressive demos of these tools always involve technical tasks where the user already knows enough to verify accuracy. But for the average person asking about health issues, legal questions, or historical facts? It's basically fancy snake oil - confident-sounding BS that people can't verify. The real breakthrough would be systems that are actually trustworthy without human verification, not slightly better BS generators. True AI research breakthroughs would admit uncertainty and provide citations for everything, not fake certainty like these tools do.

[spongebobstoes]

this remains true for pretty much all advice or information we receive. doctors, lawyers, accountants, teachers. there have been countless times that all of these professionals have given me bad advice or information

sure, at least I have someone to blame in that case. but in my experience, the AI is at least as reliable as a person who I don't personally know

[neural_thing]

I tested o3 on a medical issue I've had that 50+ doctors couldn't diagnose over the span of 6-7 years, ended up figuring it out through sheer luck. With my first prompt, it gave a list of probabilities, with the correct answer being listed as the third most likely. It also suggested correct tests to run for every option. I trust it way more than I trust human doctors who were confidently wrong about me for years.

[arkh]

I'm still thinking a simple expert system used by some nurse used to getting people to explain their symptoms would be enough to replace a general MD.

Less time and money spent to train those nurses, which you can then spend on training specialists. And your expert system will take less time to update than training thousands of doctor every time some new protocol or drug is released.

[franze]

totally agree, identified an infection with a dangerous bacteria based on a single photo - the doctor just thought about if after presented with the AI opinion

[FieryTransition]

Plenty studies show that these models are better at catching and diagnosing than even a board of doctors are. Doctors are good at other things, and I hope the future will allow doctors to use these models together with their practice.

The problem is when the ai makes a catastrophic prediction, and the layman can't see it.

[intended]

Plenty of studies is news to me. I’ve only seen anecdotal content.

[NewsaHackO]

Yes, and I am pretty sure this is already an established phenomenon; AI and ML in general are able to apply domain specific algorithms better than the people who wrote them, because of how much it gets exposed to it during training.

[spongebobstoes]

as a layman, I can't see errors that professionals make either. I trust them, and later I experience the consequences of their mistakes. sometimes catastrophically.

I don't see how it is really different with AI

[otabdeveloper4]

> but in my experience, the AI is at least as reliable as a person who I don't personally know

How do you know this?