[nadam]

I am amazed at the false dichotomy (ChatGPT vs. Doctors) discussed in the comments. Let's look at it from the perspective of how a complex software is developed with a team of software engineers and with AI assistance. There is GitHub, Slack discussions, Pull Request, reviews, agents, etc...

Why a patient's health cannot be seen this way?

Version controlled source code -> medical records, health data

Slack channels -> discussion forum dedicated to one patient's health: among human doctors (specialists), AI agents and the patient.

In my opinion we are in the stone age compared to the above.

[klardotsh]

I think you vastly overestimate the number of orgs using “agents” at all in software development, let alone as an active part of the review process for code, and ESPECIALLY the number who consider such bots equally valuable contributors to humans.

They are tools, they are sometimes useful tools in particular domains and on particular teams, but your comment reads like one that assumes they are universally agreed upon already, and thus that the health industry has a trustee example they could follow by watching our industry. I firmly disagree with that basis.

[nadam]

Maybe. But I am working with these agents and I see the sophisticated patterns using LLMs, using ground truth data and human experts working together. It could be much more effective than 'patient asking chatgpt' vs. 'general doctor one-shotting a problem without AI assistance and enough context'.

[nadam]

You put the "agent" word into apostrophes as if I use it as a marketing buzzword. No. An agent is an LLM in a loop with memory usage, with file system access, etc, which is usually more effective than just using an LLM as is, especially if you orchestrate these agents and subagents in a good way. In my opinion using the word 'ChatGPT' (a specific user-facing LLM brand) in these discussions is much more buzzwordy than using the word agent.