I'm a radiologist but can't really weigh in without seeing the full 3D MRI dataset. Regarding this point:
> They performed shockwave therapy on my shoulder even though a recent clinical practice guideline says clinicians should not use or recommend shockwave therapy for rotator-cuff tendinopathy without calcification; I was told during ultrasound that there was no calcification.
Ultrasound isn't a great way to assess for calcification. It'll find large calcification but easily miss small ones. Plain radiograph would be more helpful, but the MRI may have revealed it as well. Either way, shockwave therapy isn't harmful in the absence of calcification--it's just not helpful.
Edit: when a radiology report says something isn't present, there's always an implicit caveat that the finding isn't present within the context of the modality and images obtained. So an ultrasound report can state there are no calcifications while a plain radiograph can report the presence of calcifications without being inconsistent. Obviously very confusing to patients and people unfamiliar with medical jargon, but clarifying this in reports would make them sound even more qualified, "hedgey", and annoying to read than they already are.
There are other commenters saying this is a good practice they've also done for other injuries. You are saying you are an actual radiologist and immediately clock the problems with its advice.
I have seen this pattern over and over again. Anytime someone is an actual expert at anything, AI output appears insufficient or incomplete or outright misleading. It is only when you do not know what the AI is being asked to do is it likely you will find the output helpful.
This is itself alarming to me, but no one else seems to find this to be quite damning for the AI services being offered, preferring instanced to be wowed by the convenience and speed at which they can be delivered unreviewed and unproven information.
This is the root of AI psychosis. There’s a lot of unpack here, and I won’t go too deep because you can’t really have a discussion with affected folks because their fundamental basis is not evidence, it’s belief.
It is weirdly religious in a way, because if you were to present contrary evidence (e.g. experts in a field weighing in about how plausible sounding responses are bunk), you would only be told you don’t believe enough in the long term potential and capabilities.
Don’t get me wrong, I think we all agree capabilities will eventually improve (and farther-future capabilities could reasonably surpass experts), but really is unclear if the current transformer architectures with their probabilistic/hallucinatory outputs will plateau before they surpass current experts abilities in all promised fields.
> Anytime someone is an actual expert at anything, AI output appears insufficient or incomplete or outright misleading
Yes, this is exactly so. AI is able to confidently sound plausible enough to convince laypersons or anyone who isn't very familiar with the subject matter, which is a big part of the mass-appeal "magic" of ChatGPT and other similar tools. It's like having a know-it-all friend (who also makes shit up to bridge their own knowledge gaps).
In many non-advanced non-specialized situations, AI is right enough to be at best useful or at worst not harmful (usually landing in the middle somewhere).
But speaking for myself, in areas where I consider myself quite proficient, I can very easily spot the subtle inconsistencies and naive conclusions that AI responses provide, and I have to guide/steer/correct it a lot to get good results when the subject matter is complex enough.
> no one else seems to find this to be quite damning for the AI services being offered, preferring instanced to be wowed by the convenience and speed at which they can be delivered unreviewed and unproven information
"Be wowed by the convenience and speed", or merely "take advantage of the mere availability"? What most people find to be damning about expert advice is that they simply can't get it anywhere, at any cost that they can afford.
In certain circumstances, the answer is yes. If an airplane's pilots are incapacitated, do you simply give up and crash the plane because there are no other pilots on board? Or would you rather have someone on the ground try to coach a passenger into at least attempting to land the plane?
People, especially in medical crises, are desperate for answers that they often can't get because their clinicians don't know. The illusion of an all-knowing guru who sounds like their doctor and tells them ANYTHING is extremely alluring. If you're waiting to hear back from a doctor about test results (which these days probably showed up on your online account the moment they were completed) can be agonizing.
Ok for pain in your shoulder it might not, but how about a woman with a lump in her breast waiting for the mammogram interpretation? How about someone trying to understand disturbing lab results? People are also often pushed these days to move through visits with doctors at a breakneck speed, but the AI will "hear you out" all day.
Part of this is a problem with the AI, part of it a problem with our healthcare systems, and part of it is simply human nature. If you think that OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and the rest weren't aware of this going in you must have very little faith in the intelligence of their members. It's not hard to imagine the future of LLM's should involve a hell of a lot of liability on the companies running it, but for now it's the Wild West.
Seems natural enough. There will always be complexity and nuance that is missed by an AI model or person - the world is just super detailed. The more expertise you have the more you will be aware of that nuance. That doesn't mean the model or person is not useful as a starting point.
I see your argument, but it's not exactly news that an expert found a flaw in a popular tool. You could say the same about Wikipedia--experts have tons of issues with it, but Wikipedia still provides value to non-experts. The most likely alternative to Wikipedia for non-experts is simply not trying to learn anything new.
Similarly with LLMs, you can't just write them off entirely because they sometimes provide misleading or incorrect advice. The positive utility maximizing view is to learn when you need to call in an expert. I recently moved in to a new house and have used Claude extensively to figure out basic things (e.g., adjusting the garage door height, how to mount a TV). However, when the HVAC suddenly stopped working, I gave Claude a shot for an hour and tried some non-destructive fixes, but then realized I had to call in an HVAC expert.
On the flip side of this problem, novel best practices lag the medical standard of care, other human failures like corruption and competing priorities notwithstanding.
For example, we had to advocate for certain practices during the birth of our first child that became routine during our second several years later.
So, neither side is guaranteed correct, doctor or citizen researcher (which did not include LLMs in my case, for the record). The truest answer is also the most useless one, applicable to all fields: it depends.
The real question is: if you embrace being a layman, whom do you trust more: LLMs/the internet or experts, like doctors? I think the answer is pretty clearly experts.
> I have seen this pattern over and over again. Anytime someone is an actual expert at anything, AI output appears insufficient or incomplete or outright misleading.
AI isn't even the first instance of this phenomenon, news articles are like this as well.
Huh, I'm reading and looking up these words you guys are saying and it is starting to look exactly like the symptoms I have been having with my own right shoulder! I feel like a giant gaping rabbit hole just opened up next to my desk.
Why isn’t diagnostic ultrasound used in orthopedics? They inspect fetus hearts and other organs everyday, why not shoulders? Seems much cheaper and faster.
They do. Ultrasound in orthopedics is a relatively newer field, and there aren't quite as many sonography techs and radiologists experienced in reading these studies, which is likely why you don't see it offered more widely.
Edit: I should mention that ultrasound is basically unusable for evaluating bones. Sound waves can't penetrate bone, and so you end up just seeing a huge black void. That's a huge orthopedics use case that ultrasound just can't benefit. However, ultrasound is fantastic for evaluating muscles, ligaments, tendons, and other superficial soft tissues.
Why wouldn’t you as a doctor by standard run the images through a certified compliant LLM? The actual cost won’t be it and then you can see if you get any new ideas from it. See if it’s just wrong or that it spotted a little detail you missed?
The LLM doesn’t need to be leading or whatever but then you can have a conversation with the patient. If their ChatGPT reports has differences it can be analyzed as well.
It feels like the time constraint of the 15m doctor sessions is the thing. But if prepared immediately after the scan then why not?
There is always time needed to factor in new developments and innovations and that’s fine. Just moving blindly work from human to LLM is wrong. But learning on and testing with all the ai tools incoming constantly won’t be a waste. There will be more and more tools in those processes outside of human judgement, better improve the workflows now to be able to test and plugin new models and systems when they are ready.
Can any LLM give you the rough pixel coordinates of an item it identifies in an image?
I found that while Claude, GPT etc could describe an image, there was no way to link the description back to specific pixels in the image itself. Not even to a bounding box or segment.
Personally my favourite feature of the new ai world is not when I use it directly but it's when one of my managers uses it to try to fix a problem, then issue to me their findings and I have to defend my process to someone who understands neither my process, their suggested solution nor often the problem they're solving in the first place.
Well I live in the nightmare that is the Dutch healthcare system [1]. There are many things that they will fix but they didn’t fix my sleep. A friend fixed my sleep. He is a doctor and prescribed me the right thing. The thing is, he shouldn’t have had to intervene. Without him I could have ended up poor and destitute as my sleep was wrecking me.
And yea, I already did all the standard things. CBT for insomnia helped somewhat. My insurance didn’t fully cover it either, unless I was willing to wait for 8 to 12 months.
And I recently met someone with slow moving metastatic cancer. Thanks to LLMs they will most likely live another 3 to 5 years extra since the Dutch conventional mainline treatment hasn’t been taken yet. But it is German doctors that helped them and Belgian doctors that pointed out in a second opinion that a lot more can be done.
LLMs have a part to play. The false positives are awful, but I have seen an average of 5 out of 10 care when things become too complicated.
Except for trauma treatment. The Dutch healthcare system is amazing once they diagnose classic PTSD.
So it’s definitely not all bad but the trust I had when I was younger has been eroded quite a bit and LLMs can meaningfully step in, in my case at least.
[1] I know there are worse systems. But from what I have heard there are clearly better systems nowadays. It has slipped a lot
There’s more than two options here. It was already difficult to deal with self diagnosis for doctors, now we have a machine that outputs recommendations, and does it with confidence whether it’s correct or not.
The same issues that were present with search-engine self diagnosis are still present with LLMs. If you provide Google with an incomplete list of symptoms and can’t interpret the information you find correctly, you will likely get an incorrect diagnosis. The same is true for LLM output.
There are plenty of disclaimers everywhere that soften confidence: "always ask a medical specialist", "I'm not a doctor", "this could have been this or that but really not sure", etc.
They are using the “gold standard for the evaluation of expert medical computing systems” not a proxy for what a doctor actually do when diagnosing someone.
Its a nightmare because it erodes trust. Doctors are not "always right" which is why "always get a second opinion" is codified in culture.
But AI's problem is that its completely full of shit, sometimes, and the people most qualified to evaluate whether its full of shit are the doctors, not the patients, but just like OP's original article, patients are left feeling like their second opinion from AI might be more trustworthy than their doctors opinion.
Nightmare because users approach LLMs with the false confidence that they're always right, and present LLM outputs as fact to Doctors who have to waste time explaining that it's wrong most of the time. It hurts more than it helps.
The NYT did this profile a while back: "Ben Riley was already writing about the risks of chatbots when his dad started trusting A.I. over his doctor."
The dad was a retired neuroscientist who delayed cancer treatment against medical advice because he was certain he had been misdiagnosed based on his own research that he did with the help of A.I.
> I am very grateful to Teddy Rosenbluth for sharing my father's story with the world, her kindness and curiousity proved to be restorative in ways I didn't anticipate.
> The two words that everyone used to describe my dad: "intelligent" and "kind," and he was indeed both of those things. The sad irony here is that it was his human intelligence, combined with these strange new tools that purport to be a form of 'artificial' intelligence, that led to his ill-advised decision to forego the treatment he needed for his CLL. A doctor has already commented on this story with the observation that AI "confidently asserts erroneous conclusions," and we simply have no idea how often this is happening or the magnitude of the harm that results.
> Not a day goes by that I don't feel the pang of my father's absence. He might still be here if not for AI. I try not to think about that, but sometimes I can't help myself.
I asked a clanker about symptoms I was having. (I'm not an idiot, I was already on my way to hospital, clanker was just to take my mind off symptoms during the drive.)
The clanker said I'd be fine, I just needed some rest and OTC meds.
The medical staff immediately turfed me to surgery because the same set of symptoms I told the clanker were enough to concern them that I needed emergency surgery.
Had I have listened to the clanker, I'd be dead because I did need emergency surgery. (Hell, I almost kicked the bucket because I waited for someone to wake up to give me a lift because.my insurance probably doesnt cover an ambulance ride.)
This is obviously going to happen. But sub-par and sloppy doctors are a thing too. Medicine has been using semi-intelligent systems for years that were nevertheless found to improve outcomes.
We need studies that quantify error rates from each source type, then we need to account for the fact that the artificial type will keep improving.
It can be helpful in your understanding the choices made by asking questions and thus in reassurance, but it requires something most people lack: understanding you are likely wrong since you are just collecting information without understanding it.
Pretty much the like most manager these days, so I understand the frustration of the GPs.
Like any domain, when you have questions or need a solution, you make research first, then you ask a specialist.
If you explain well the symptoms and context you can have proper advices and then decide on the path next:
Case A) It looks benign and advices / information that you collected seem reasonable, then you go your way.
Case B) You need second opinion of a specialist because the subject is too complex, or there are medications that you need approval.
Once you have challenged LLMs, and read about the topics over and over then you genuinely become really good at understanding it (especially if you triangulate over LLMs and ask them to challenge, you start to have genuine questions). No matter if the answer is right or wrong, you have elements. Maybe you missed the point, but you come prepared.
At home you have the time to assess the options, pros and cons of each approaches, the possible questions to ask and then challenge the doctor.
Shared decision-making is an actual evidence-based model of care, and patients who arrive understanding their condition and carrying specific questions tend to get better attention and better outcomes.
Some doctors get annoyed, because they have big ego and choose to be patronizing, but it is exactly their job to answer such questions.
With LLMs, it's quite good, you get nuanced and rather useful answers.
Before LLMs, no matter the topic you searched for, the answer was the same: "you have cancer / an [obviously deadly] rare disease"
The other problem, in many places:
• The doctors are not affordable
• They are too busy for you (< 15 minutes)
• You may need to wait months to get an appointment
• They are not good (country-side is an example, and sometimes even country-level)
+ you can have all of these factors together.
So, you have something deeply bothering you, your only appointment is in 4 months. It would be insane not to take the time to explore different solutions and not to come informed about the topic.
If you express your prompt properly and do not rely on imagery, you can absolutely have top-tier advices.
I would not trust AI on images. But I once had ChatGPT tell me that an MRI report was very likely to be incorrect based on the text, and offered a different diagnosis. Since it was semi insisting, I visited another doctor who made me do a retest. Long story short, ChatGPT was correct.
Again, this is just one single person's experience. So not worth much.
I think that much of the visual gap is because what to attend to in images is less structured. Anecdotally small qwen finetunes (ie less than 10B) take task accuracy from sub 30% on FMs to 90%. We have sold some of these for outcome based back office tasks.
I think we’ll see a lot of specialized VLMs that provide real value.
> As detailed in a new, yet-to-be-peer-reviewed paper, a team of researchers at Stanford University found that frontier AI models readily generated “detailed image descriptions and elaborate reasoning traces, including pathology-biased clinical findings, for images never provided.”
> In other words, the AI models happily came up with answers to questions about a supposedly accompanying image — even if the researchers never even showed it an image.
> As opposed to hallucinations, which involve AI models arbitrarily filling in the gaps within a logical framework, the team coined a new term for the phenomenon: “mirage reasoning.”
> The effect “involves constructing a false epistemic frame, i.e., describing a multi-modal input never provided by the user and basing the rest of the conversation on that, therefore changing the context of the task at hand,” the researchers wrote in their paper.
> The damning findings suggest AI models cheat by diving into the data they were given — and coming up with the rest based on probability, even if it’s almost entirely conjecture.
It makes a lot of sense if you understand how these models work but this was a cool read anyways and studies like this are impotent for curbing the unfortunate fever dream some folks seem to be collectively having about LLM omnipotence
I work at a telemedicine company. We’ve benchmarked a few frontier LLMs on public medical imaging datasets. One test included high-quality and high-consensus otoscopic images. We didn’t anticipate the models to do well on something so niche, but what concerned us was how poorly calibrated the models were.
I know you can’t trust an LLM’s self-assessed “confidence” of a prediction, but I’ve found that confidence can at least be directionally correct for some tasks. For our benchmarks, however, confidence was poorly correlated. What’s worse is that binary classification models (“Do you see $diagnosis in this photo?”) highly influenced the LLM to confidently predict $diagnosis.
I’m concerned for those using LLMs for diagnostics, and getting confidently led to the wrong conclusion.
But the binary classification models can be made ternary easily. RL on congruence plus penalty for misdiagnosis is easy to set up and gives great results.
What I’ve seen be the true bottleneck is people not setting up the structured data. But making a tiny reasoning model with OPSD -> GRPO is totally doable with a bit of money.
I don’t understand how this is a different result than giving any LLM a task that is not completely grounded? I’ve observed this in coding tasks, if I forget to include a file referred to in the spec, the LLM will just hallucinate a version of it and my results suck. If I give it the file (and really, all the information I claimed it had access to), the task works fine. I fixed this in my pipeline with a prompt that does an extensive grounding analysis to determine if the assets I’m giving it are complete with respect to the spec (and that the spec is grounded as well, ie it doesn’t refer to something that is undefined).
I wonder if the above problem can be fixed similarly? Just ask the LLM to do a conservative grounding analysis before jumping to the main task?
But why should I care? If you demonstrated that a model can perform more accurate diagnoses than a doctor, but also it had this strange behavior when no image was presented, why should that deter me from using the model?
Radiologists very often have to weigh up different theories, guidelines based on the symptoms. The certainty of their diagnosis is their added value, or if they don’t know they will tell you why.
An AI telling you it could be X or Y because theory ABC… is the academic answer and a luxury clinicians don’t have. AI doesn’t give you what you want. I don’t see any added value in using generic AI models for this
Hey OP my wife had a subscap tear and went through with surgery. Recovery was ROUGH, she couldn’t use that arm at all for almost two months. It’s amazing how much this can cripple a person, we don’t realize how much we use both our hands for our daily lives until one is gone. Even basic stuff like cooking, bathing, etc.
If you can avoid surgery you should. Try doing the Buckburger 12 (spelling?) shoulder physiotherapy regiment. You’ll need to even if you get surgery, but this can help with tedonopathy.
Also try to identify what is causing the repetitive stress and cut back on that activity.
I do powerlifting and couple years ago, I developed bicep tendinitis on my right arm. Even a tiny bit of weight on it while palm facing up would cause crazy pain. It was funny how I weight from lifting heavy weights to not even being able to carry a plate of food, not being able to press soap dispensers, or give a spot to someone at the gym.
I know little about radiology, but MRI is a 3D medium. I would not be at all surprised if one could slice an MRI the wrong way to produce a 2D image that fails to show a feature that exists in the source data.
Sure, it can see obvious stuff in images, but as far as I'm aware it is not designed for (or tested on) performing the kind microscopic analysis that radiology involves
Right now the article reads as "AI can play doctor if you give MRI scans".
If the author would actually go for a second opinion (maybe bring along the AI to let it explain it's findings), then the article could read as "AI did MRI analysis and proved my doctor wrong" (or: "AI did MRI analysis and failed").
I wouldn't trust anything from Claude here image-wise (maybe to get a 2nd opinion on the report itself and treatment it's reasonable), but also, on the cases there is something something serious, go to at least 2 different doctors and if they have different opinions go for a 3rd for a decisive vote, besides doing your own research (it's not that uncommon for hard cases to be badly diagnosed).
This could be a starting point for consulting a different human expert for a second opinion (e.g., specific questions to ask about), but I wouldn't put much trust in Claude alone on this.
IME, on an almost daily basis, claude.ai and Claude Code are confidently wrong about something, and use polished language to assert nonsense.[*]
If it's doing that on something easy, like factual knowledge available in text on the Internet, or programming code that can be inspected easily and follows well-known rules, and I can tell, because I understand those things... then there's no way I'm going to assume that Claude doesn't also BS when it comes to someone else's field. Especially not a field that requires some of the smartest people to go a decade of training, just to get started in the field.
[*] And if I confront Claude with its mistakes, eventually it apologizes, and acts as if it's learned something, again mimicking word patterns it's heard real people use and mean, without meaning any of it. I wonder whether the AI user experience would be better, if LLM-ish interfaces weren't implicitly created in the image of fake-it-till-you-make-it overconfident performative sociopathic techbros.
> They performed shockwave therapy on my shoulder even though a recent clinical practice guideline says clinicians should not use or recommend shockwave therapy for rotator-cuff tendinopathy without calcification; I was told during ultrasound that there was no calcification.
Ultrasound isn't a great way to assess for calcification. It'll find large calcification but easily miss small ones. Plain radiograph would be more helpful, but the MRI may have revealed it as well. Either way, shockwave therapy isn't harmful in the absence of calcification--it's just not helpful.
Edit: when a radiology report says something isn't present, there's always an implicit caveat that the finding isn't present within the context of the modality and images obtained. So an ultrasound report can state there are no calcifications while a plain radiograph can report the presence of calcifications without being inconsistent. Obviously very confusing to patients and people unfamiliar with medical jargon, but clarifying this in reports would make them sound even more qualified, "hedgey", and annoying to read than they already are.
There are other commenters saying this is a good practice they've also done for other injuries. You are saying you are an actual radiologist and immediately clock the problems with its advice.
I have seen this pattern over and over again. Anytime someone is an actual expert at anything, AI output appears insufficient or incomplete or outright misleading. It is only when you do not know what the AI is being asked to do is it likely you will find the output helpful.
This is itself alarming to me, but no one else seems to find this to be quite damning for the AI services being offered, preferring instanced to be wowed by the convenience and speed at which they can be delivered unreviewed and unproven information.
It is weirdly religious in a way, because if you were to present contrary evidence (e.g. experts in a field weighing in about how plausible sounding responses are bunk), you would only be told you don’t believe enough in the long term potential and capabilities.
Don’t get me wrong, I think we all agree capabilities will eventually improve (and farther-future capabilities could reasonably surpass experts), but really is unclear if the current transformer architectures with their probabilistic/hallucinatory outputs will plateau before they surpass current experts abilities in all promised fields.
Yes, this is exactly so. AI is able to confidently sound plausible enough to convince laypersons or anyone who isn't very familiar with the subject matter, which is a big part of the mass-appeal "magic" of ChatGPT and other similar tools. It's like having a know-it-all friend (who also makes shit up to bridge their own knowledge gaps).
In many non-advanced non-specialized situations, AI is right enough to be at best useful or at worst not harmful (usually landing in the middle somewhere).
But speaking for myself, in areas where I consider myself quite proficient, I can very easily spot the subtle inconsistencies and naive conclusions that AI responses provide, and I have to guide/steer/correct it a lot to get good results when the subject matter is complex enough.
"Be wowed by the convenience and speed", or merely "take advantage of the mere availability"? What most people find to be damning about expert advice is that they simply can't get it anywhere, at any cost that they can afford.
Ok for pain in your shoulder it might not, but how about a woman with a lump in her breast waiting for the mammogram interpretation? How about someone trying to understand disturbing lab results? People are also often pushed these days to move through visits with doctors at a breakneck speed, but the AI will "hear you out" all day.
Part of this is a problem with the AI, part of it a problem with our healthcare systems, and part of it is simply human nature. If you think that OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and the rest weren't aware of this going in you must have very little faith in the intelligence of their members. It's not hard to imagine the future of LLM's should involve a hell of a lot of liability on the companies running it, but for now it's the Wild West.
Similarly with LLMs, you can't just write them off entirely because they sometimes provide misleading or incorrect advice. The positive utility maximizing view is to learn when you need to call in an expert. I recently moved in to a new house and have used Claude extensively to figure out basic things (e.g., adjusting the garage door height, how to mount a TV). However, when the HVAC suddenly stopped working, I gave Claude a shot for an hour and tried some non-destructive fixes, but then realized I had to call in an HVAC expert.
I find Claude is surprisingly similar to a confident but incorrect coworker, with the benefit that Claude will reevaluate when I correct it.
For example, we had to advocate for certain practices during the birth of our first child that became routine during our second several years later.
So, neither side is guaranteed correct, doctor or citizen researcher (which did not include LLMs in my case, for the record). The truest answer is also the most useless one, applicable to all fields: it depends.
The real question is: if you embrace being a layman, whom do you trust more: LLMs/the internet or experts, like doctors? I think the answer is pretty clearly experts.
AI isn't even the first instance of this phenomenon, news articles are like this as well.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesia_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system
Edit: I should mention that ultrasound is basically unusable for evaluating bones. Sound waves can't penetrate bone, and so you end up just seeing a huge black void. That's a huge orthopedics use case that ultrasound just can't benefit. However, ultrasound is fantastic for evaluating muscles, ligaments, tendons, and other superficial soft tissues.
The LLM doesn’t need to be leading or whatever but then you can have a conversation with the patient. If their ChatGPT reports has differences it can be analyzed as well.
It feels like the time constraint of the 15m doctor sessions is the thing. But if prepared immediately after the scan then why not?
There is always time needed to factor in new developments and innovations and that’s fine. Just moving blindly work from human to LLM is wrong. But learning on and testing with all the ai tools incoming constantly won’t be a waste. There will be more and more tools in those processes outside of human judgement, better improve the workflows now to be able to test and plugin new models and systems when they are ready.
I found that while Claude, GPT etc could describe an image, there was no way to link the description back to specific pixels in the image itself. Not even to a bounding box or segment.
AI probably exacerbates it but crappy managers exist regardless
One doctor diagnosis + LLM is gonna throw you off. You need more datapoints.
And yea, I already did all the standard things. CBT for insomnia helped somewhat. My insurance didn’t fully cover it either, unless I was willing to wait for 8 to 12 months.
And I recently met someone with slow moving metastatic cancer. Thanks to LLMs they will most likely live another 3 to 5 years extra since the Dutch conventional mainline treatment hasn’t been taken yet. But it is German doctors that helped them and Belgian doctors that pointed out in a second opinion that a lot more can be done.
LLMs have a part to play. The false positives are awful, but I have seen an average of 5 out of 10 care when things become too complicated.
Except for trauma treatment. The Dutch healthcare system is amazing once they diagnose classic PTSD.
So it’s definitely not all bad but the trust I had when I was younger has been eroded quite a bit and LLMs can meaningfully step in, in my case at least.
[1] I know there are worse systems. But from what I have heard there are clearly better systems nowadays. It has slipped a lot
The same issues that were present with search-engine self diagnosis are still present with LLMs. If you provide Google with an incomplete list of symptoms and can’t interpret the information you find correctly, you will likely get an incorrect diagnosis. The same is true for LLM output.
Studies have found that newer reasoning AIs are about as good at diagnosing illness from a written description of symptoms as doctors are.
Granted, it cannot actually examine a patient, so we're not replacing doctors anytime soon. But your view is obsolete.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adz4433
But AI's problem is that its completely full of shit, sometimes, and the people most qualified to evaluate whether its full of shit are the doctors, not the patients, but just like OP's original article, patients are left feeling like their second opinion from AI might be more trustworthy than their doctors opinion.
Examples of things normal people can verify
- procedural errors that Claude can capture like some blatantly high dosage (grams instead of milligrams)
- outdated treatment plan, maybe there’s a credible new treatment plan that’s been used for years but the doctors were not updated
- literally being injected homeopathic drugs (takes no smart person to flag this)
Let’s stop talking as if doctors have a divine right here. And let’s accept some agency.
The dad was a retired neuroscientist who delayed cancer treatment against medical advice because he was certain he had been misdiagnosed based on his own research that he did with the help of A.I.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/13/well/ai-chatbots-cancer.h...
There's a comment on the article from Ben Riley:
> I am very grateful to Teddy Rosenbluth for sharing my father's story with the world, her kindness and curiousity proved to be restorative in ways I didn't anticipate.
> The two words that everyone used to describe my dad: "intelligent" and "kind," and he was indeed both of those things. The sad irony here is that it was his human intelligence, combined with these strange new tools that purport to be a form of 'artificial' intelligence, that led to his ill-advised decision to forego the treatment he needed for his CLL. A doctor has already commented on this story with the observation that AI "confidently asserts erroneous conclusions," and we simply have no idea how often this is happening or the magnitude of the harm that results.
> Not a day goes by that I don't feel the pang of my father's absence. He might still be here if not for AI. I try not to think about that, but sometimes I can't help myself.
The clanker said I'd be fine, I just needed some rest and OTC meds.
The medical staff immediately turfed me to surgery because the same set of symptoms I told the clanker were enough to concern them that I needed emergency surgery.
Had I have listened to the clanker, I'd be dead because I did need emergency surgery. (Hell, I almost kicked the bucket because I waited for someone to wake up to give me a lift because.my insurance probably doesnt cover an ambulance ride.)
We need studies that quantify error rates from each source type, then we need to account for the fact that the artificial type will keep improving.
Pretty much the like most manager these days, so I understand the frustration of the GPs.
Like any domain, when you have questions or need a solution, you make research first, then you ask a specialist.
If you explain well the symptoms and context you can have proper advices and then decide on the path next:
Once you have challenged LLMs, and read about the topics over and over then you genuinely become really good at understanding it (especially if you triangulate over LLMs and ask them to challenge, you start to have genuine questions). No matter if the answer is right or wrong, you have elements. Maybe you missed the point, but you come prepared.At home you have the time to assess the options, pros and cons of each approaches, the possible questions to ask and then challenge the doctor.
Shared decision-making is an actual evidence-based model of care, and patients who arrive understanding their condition and carrying specific questions tend to get better attention and better outcomes.
Some doctors get annoyed, because they have big ego and choose to be patronizing, but it is exactly their job to answer such questions.
The other problem, in many places: + you can have all of these factors together.So, you have something deeply bothering you, your only appointment is in 4 months. It would be insane not to take the time to explore different solutions and not to come informed about the topic.
If you express your prompt properly and do not rely on imagery, you can absolutely have top-tier advices.
Again, this is just one single person's experience. So not worth much.
I think we’ll see a lot of specialized VLMs that provide real value.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01947-1
I've started asking my doctors whether they use AI, and if they say yes look for another one.
> As detailed in a new, yet-to-be-peer-reviewed paper, a team of researchers at Stanford University found that frontier AI models readily generated “detailed image descriptions and elaborate reasoning traces, including pathology-biased clinical findings, for images never provided.”
> In other words, the AI models happily came up with answers to questions about a supposedly accompanying image — even if the researchers never even showed it an image.
> As opposed to hallucinations, which involve AI models arbitrarily filling in the gaps within a logical framework, the team coined a new term for the phenomenon: “mirage reasoning.”
> The effect “involves constructing a false epistemic frame, i.e., describing a multi-modal input never provided by the user and basing the rest of the conversation on that, therefore changing the context of the task at hand,” the researchers wrote in their paper.
> The damning findings suggest AI models cheat by diving into the data they were given — and coming up with the rest based on probability, even if it’s almost entirely conjecture.
I know you can’t trust an LLM’s self-assessed “confidence” of a prediction, but I’ve found that confidence can at least be directionally correct for some tasks. For our benchmarks, however, confidence was poorly correlated. What’s worse is that binary classification models (“Do you see $diagnosis in this photo?”) highly influenced the LLM to confidently predict $diagnosis.
I’m concerned for those using LLMs for diagnostics, and getting confidently led to the wrong conclusion.
What I’ve seen be the true bottleneck is people not setting up the structured data. But making a tiny reasoning model with OPSD -> GRPO is totally doable with a bit of money.
I wonder if the above problem can be fixed similarly? Just ask the LLM to do a conservative grounding analysis before jumping to the main task?
An AI telling you it could be X or Y because theory ABC… is the academic answer and a luxury clinicians don’t have. AI doesn’t give you what you want. I don’t see any added value in using generic AI models for this
Even a tiny injury can severely cripple us.
If the author would actually go for a second opinion (maybe bring along the AI to let it explain it's findings), then the article could read as "AI did MRI analysis and proved my doctor wrong" (or: "AI did MRI analysis and failed").
IME, on an almost daily basis, claude.ai and Claude Code are confidently wrong about something, and use polished language to assert nonsense.[*]
If it's doing that on something easy, like factual knowledge available in text on the Internet, or programming code that can be inspected easily and follows well-known rules, and I can tell, because I understand those things... then there's no way I'm going to assume that Claude doesn't also BS when it comes to someone else's field. Especially not a field that requires some of the smartest people to go a decade of training, just to get started in the field.
[*] And if I confront Claude with its mistakes, eventually it apologizes, and acts as if it's learned something, again mimicking word patterns it's heard real people use and mean, without meaning any of it. I wonder whether the AI user experience would be better, if LLM-ish interfaces weren't implicitly created in the image of fake-it-till-you-make-it overconfident performative sociopathic techbros.
But are you all forgetting that they literally injected a homeopathic drug on the author?
Between that and Claude sometimes hallucinating, it’s probably worth encouraging patients to take second opinion always.