[tossandthrow]

Your argument that ownership and reputation generally ensures better answers than agents is absurd.

It is entirely clear that is it not the case when I compare agent generated apps with what contracted software teams have produced.

For medicine it is likely worse.

Doctors do care, but they have to give an advice based on their 15 year old knowledge - they simply can't read through 83 papers in a quick session.

I think it is a matter of time before we see the first insurance companies assign greater risk to human advice (legal, tech, medicine, etc.) than to agentic advice.

[SoftTalker]

15 year old knowledge is fine in most cases. Human diseases and their treatments haven't really changed in that time, and those that have are pretty well known. You will get the "standard of care" as a starting point.

[tossandthrow]

You are citing a legacy institutional system where updating a "standard of care" was a major institutional chance.

You likely have to change your idea about this. Heck, this view was wrong 6 months ago. Sticking with is becomes a hazard to patients.

[dgellow]

> Your argument that ownership and reputation generally ensures better answers than agents is absurd.

That's not my argument... I didn't draw the conclusion that because of those 2 factors humans generally provide better answers. I personally have no idea if that's the case, and for sure wouldn't rely on my personal feelings to evaluate that

[tossandthrow]

You clearly appear to setup that argument

> So, on one hand you can get an expert take that might be wrong, but is linked to an actual person, with a reputation and some level of ownership.

Regardless, I agree.

The newest studies still works on llms that are two years old. It doesn't appear that proper medical harnesses with frontier models has been evaluated.

My slight intuition is that we will already now see results that are much better than average human doctors.