[taikon]

It's honestly such a big problem. One of my colleagues uses an AI scribe. I can't rely on any of his chart notes because the AI sometimes hallucinates (I've already informed him). It also tends to write a ridiculous amount of detail that are totally unnecessary and leave out important details such that I still need to comb through patient charts for (med rec, consults, etc). In the end it ends up creating more work for me. And if my colleague ever gets a college complaint I have no clue how he's gonna navigate any AI generated errors. I'm all for AI and it's great for things like copywriting, brainstorming and code generation. But from what I'm seeing, it's creating a lot more headache in the clinical setting.

If you're why doesn't this guy just check the AI scribe notes? Well, probably because with the amount of detail it writes, he'd be better off writing a quick soap note.

[batshit_beaver]

> I'm all for AI and it's great for things like copywriting, brainstorming and code generation

It's funny how the assumption is always that LLMs are very useful in an industry other than your own.

[tempest_]

I mean they are not wrong.

For all the whinging about bugs and errors around here the software industry in general (some niche sub-fields excepted) long ago decided 80% is good enough to ship and we will figure the rest out later. This entire site is based on startup culture which largely prided itself on MVP moonshots.

Plus plenty of places are perfectly fine with tech dept and the AI fire hose is effectively tech debt on steroids but while it creates it at scale it can also help in understanding it.

It is is own panacea in a way.

I think it is gonna be a while before the industry figures out how to handle this better so might as well just ride the wave and not worry too much about it in software.

Still software is not medicine even if software is required in basically every industry now. It should more conservative and wait till things settle down before jumping in.

[phatskat]

> long ago decided 80% is good enough to ship and we will figure the rest out later

Sure, we can eat that 80% if we made the debt and know where the bodies are buried. When AI does it, it’s more like “50% is good enough and hopefully someone smart enough can fix it up to 60% when it breaks”, which inevitably means we get it to 55%.

> while it creates it at scale it can also help in understanding it.

This feels like cope, and I’m not trying to be snarky. I also know that I had to train my brain to skip google’s “AI Summary” on searches because I’ve had a handful of wrong answers from it - not technically correct, not correct with caveats, just flat out wrong. So sure, AI could make a bigger mess and then we could trust it to help sort it out, but even if it finds three real problems and one non-existent one, it has still made even more work to sort out.

> Still software is not medicine even if software is required in basically every industry now. It should more conservative and wait till things settle down before jumping in.

Agree. We had a big company meeting about becoming an AI-focused company (we do healthcare-related software) and I’m honestly a little worried - I don’t use any AI in my work, and when I asked a colleague who implemented our new build process for help with migrating my own repo they said “I don’t know, I asked GPT to do it”. And that’s why the pipeline has a mega-long ternary for the name which doesn’t resolve, so all of our runs are titled “if [[ $matrixType === …” but they’re using AI, and they’re going to be celebrated for it

[_AzMoo]

My (extensive) experience with LLM code generation is that it has the same issues you describe in your field. Hallucinations, over-engineering, misses important requirements/patterns.

But engineers have these same problems. The key is that the content creator (engineers for codegen, doctors for medicine) is still responsible for the output of the AI, as if they wrote it themselves. If they make a mistake with an AI (eg, include false data - hallucinations), they should be held accountable in the same way they would if they made a mistake without it.

[shimman]

Okay but since we know how humans actually behave, they will fully trust the indeterministic machine and give away their thinking. Sadly there is a large swath of humans that will act like this, maybe 20-30%.

Are you willing to put your life in the hands of these people fully using the machines to do everything?

Acting like that smart people aren't getting one shot'ed by these machines is very dangerous. Even worse is how quickly your skills actual degrade. If knew my doctor was using anything LLM related, I would switch doctors.

[rconti]

It feels very much like AI is creating AI lock-in (if not AI _vendor_ lock-in) by creating so much detailed information that it's futile to consume it without AI tools.

I was updating some gitlab pipelines and some simple testing scripts and it created 3 separate 300+ line README type metadata files (I think even the QUCIKSTART.md was 300 lines).

[acuozzo]

> I'm all for AI and it's great for things like copywriting, brainstorming and code generation

That's funny. I would have said the same thing about your field prior to reading your comment.

[phatskat]

You would have? I don’t necessarily think I like the idea of using AI for anything that I’m going to send to anyone else, be it prose or code. But I’d rather get an AI generated pull request than have anyone in my medical team using it for, well, anything.

[dmtroyer]

sounds like they need a better instructions.md