[KaoruAoiShiho]

Nah AI can easily be programmed to be much more patient and investigate edge cases and figure out personalized solutions thoroughly and provide bespoke service. This problem would be solved, though of course there are other issues with biases of the bureaucracies.

[hluska]

If you can do that easily, you will have no shortage of investors. But it’s not easy - getting the data alone is a huge problem.

[KaoruAoiShiho]

I think OpenAI has plenty of investors...

https://x.com/deedydas/status/1933370776264323164

[nradov]

OpenAI doesn't lack investment capital. What they still don't have is a good source of high quality clinical data. And this isn't just a matter of buying access to deidentified patient charts from some large health system. Most clinical data quality is kind of crap so using it directly for model training produces garbage output. You need an extensive cleansing and normalization pipeline designed by human clinicians who understand the data at a deep level.

[KaoruAoiShiho]

Absolutely true, but is there a system that works perfectly that I can use now that has all that that isn't AI?

In the absence of such a thing OpenAI is already quite good, some theoretical perfect shouldn't be trotted out as a counter if it doesn't actually exist.

[hluska]

There is a massive difference between being able to discuss symptoms and actually being diagnosed. Diagnosing edge cases is precisely the kind of thing that a generative AI needs massive amounts of data on. Where is this magical data source that violates doctor patient confidentiality? And all the doctors just contribute to it and everything is fine? Come on…

[hluska]

That’s true but they have a massive shortage of clinical data. Doctor patient confidentiality is a thing.