from Hacker News

ChatGPT 4 saved my dog’s life

by dsr12 on 3/26/23, 6:30 AM with 104 comments

  • by extr on 3/26/23, 6:58 AM

    I've been using ChatGPT as a health consultant for all sorts of things. If you've ever experienced health anxiety, you know a huge problem is Googling your symptoms and the top links immediately going to diagnoses like lymphoma or HIV. There is no sense of the a priori likelihood of anything. But ChatGPT is pretty measured, and though it includes tons of disclaimers about needing to see a real doctor, it's impossible to definitely say, etc etc, it's much better about returning the REAL most likely reason you have a headache (you're dehydrated) rather than you have brain cancer.

    Of course, you could argue this is lulling you in a false sense of security. But the same thing (arguably worse) happens when you go to a real doctor! Half the time they barely look at you and just kind of shrug off concerns/anxiety.

    Edit: I got curious and ran an experiment. Typically when you are anxiously googling you are worried about the worst case (even if it's not rational).

    Google: "headache brain tumor"

    First result, before links even, is a huge out-of-context info box from the Mayo Clinic on brain tumors that highlights the words "Or a brain tumor can cause swelling in the brain that increases pressure in the head and leads to a headache." Jesus Christ!

    ChatGPT 3.5: "I have a headache, could it be a brain tumor?"

    First two sentences: "A headache can have many different causes, and while a brain tumor is one possible cause, it is not the most common cause. Most headaches are not caused by brain tumors and are usually due to other factors such as tension, sinus issues, or migraine." It then goes on to list tumor-specific headaches symptoms (like changes in vision or hearing) and calls out to see a doctor if you're getting those.

    Which do you think is more likely to calm you down? Or is more legitimately helpful and going to provide good outcomes?

  • by testHNac on 3/26/23, 6:55 AM

    This is the right approach to using AI.

    Went to a Vet. After the treatment didn't work, asked AI.

    Considered AI's opinion.

    Went to another Vet for Opinion.

    Got Results.

    Problem arises when People will blindly follow the diagnosis by GPT.

    Got me thinking.

    The first Vet might not have considered the issue due to a blind spot in judgement.

    An interesting use of GPT for me will be to give it a scenario and try to come up with new ways of looking at the problem.

    A way to detect blindspots in my judgement.

  • by raincole on 3/26/23, 6:43 AM

    It's incredible, but I think we're going to witness the first person who gets killed by GPT-4 in about 3~6 months.

    Someone is going to blindly follow GPT-4's medical advice and meet their end.

  • by p-e-w on 3/26/23, 6:48 AM

    This story is a great reminder why AIs don't need to perform at Nobel Laureate level in order to make almost all humans obsolete: Because almost all humans don't perform like Nobel Laureates either. ChatGPT isn't competing against the cutting edge of medical knowledge, but against the indifferent, overworked, incompetent individual professionals that are all that's available to most of us. No wonder it comes out on top.

  • by geraneum on 3/26/23, 7:48 AM

    When I search “different causes of anemia in dogs” in either Kagi or Google (with Ad-Block), the first response for me gives the same information That GPT-4 does.

  • by nwienert on 3/26/23, 7:50 AM

    My first google - "dog anemia low platelet count increase wbc" - first result suggests the same, plus 3-4 more on the first page.

    I'm guessing about 1000x faster than using ChatGPT.

    I think the real story here is how vulnerable many are to hype, and maybe even more so, how many are willing to ignore the obvious to cash in on the attention.

    We saw it with crypto, now it's AI's turn. Honestly I can't tell which had more annoying grifters.

  • by paxys on 3/26/23, 7:52 AM

    Very happy that things worked out for them in the end, but people should remember that for every good suggestion generated by ChatGPT there may be a hundred others that it has just hallucinated. The author did the right thing by using its response as a starting point to do further consultations and testing, but I suspect there will be more and more cases of patients barging into their doctor's office with printouts of ChatGPT results convinced that they know the right treatments, similar to what happens today with Google and WebMD. Or worse just trying the treatments themselves without any consultation at all.

  • by namaria on 3/26/23, 7:50 AM

    I see a story about information saving a life. ChatGPT is certainly a tool that can retrieve information.

    Are we gonna celebrate the millions of lives saved by books next?

  • by abbefaria27 on 3/26/23, 4:51 PM

    The author just needed to get a second opinion. I showed this to a veterinarian I know, and she said this is pretty obvious from a quick glance at the bloodwork. In fact she's skeptical that the first vet didn't see it, and rather thinks there may have been some miscommunication. You can look up anemia in a reference and it lists the same differentials. Though according to her, ChatGPT didn't present them in the most likely order (e.g. babesiosis should be lower), and there are many other factors to consider.

    This is still very impressive for a computer program, but not as mind-blowing as I first thought when reading the thread. ChatGPT didn't find some obscure disease like in a medical TV show. Rather, it correctly read the low blood cell count, and pulled up the differentials for anemia from a reference book.

    On a side note, considering how often ChatGPT will lie with full confidence, personally I can't imagine using it for anything medically related.

  • by thunderbong on 3/26/23, 7:37 AM

  • by kretaceous on 3/26/23, 7:27 AM

    I shed a tear. It's not often you come across a story of end user tech saving lives, let alone a relatively nascent one.

    Such a strong girl. Go Sassy!

  • by davidkuennen on 3/26/23, 6:35 AM

    Mind-blowing. Really let's one imagine the possibilities in the future or even now.

  • by ornornor on 3/26/23, 7:25 AM

  • by jillesvangurp on 3/26/23, 8:48 AM

    I've been skimming lots of articles and threads on GPT and AI. What strikes as a bit repulsive is the overwhelming panicky tone, conservatism, moralism, finger waving, and outright luddism on display. So, nice to see something a bit more positive. Dog got sick, chat gpt 4 saves the day. Amazing.

    I'm more or less an optimist. My default attitude is that things will be fine even if they aren't perfect just right now. I enjoy utopian sci fi. I know intellectually it is a utopia and not realistic. But I still like to imagine how great humanity could be if we got rid of that before mentioned attitude. Chat GPT is the most concrete thing in my life time that gets us close to how people interacted with such classic AI characters as c3po, twiki (Buck rogers), kitt in Knight Rider, or the nameless "computer" in Star Trek. I grew up in the eighties (obviously).

    My first computer was a commodore 64, that wasn't quite that smart. All that went from being science fiction to being science fact in the last few months. We now have conversational AIs that we can discuss all sorts of topics with. Like C3PO it jumps to the wrong conclusions some times, can be wrong in very entertaining ways, and is scarily good when things go right. I had some debate with Bing as to what to eat and then debugged some code with chat gpt 3 and it pointed out some mistakes that I made.

    Is AI going to replace me in everything I do? No, I don't think so. If only because it is in my interest to find ways to keep myself busy. But I sure am going to be using it a lot to do what I do a little bit faster. Which means I get to do more interesting things. Sounds good to me. I like doing interesting things.

    GPT 4 apparently has the ability to use tools. Where GPT-3 struggles to do math, GPT-4 can use a calculator and learn to use other tools. This is going to be very disruptive for me. Because learning how to use all sorts of weird and obscure tools is a big part of what I need to do. Often what I do conceptually (I'm a startup CTO) is pretty easy to grasp. Except I then need to figure out a whole bunch of tools to get the work done. Which is actually somewhat tedious. I hate it when an idea pops in my head and I then have to grind at figuring out stupid tool issues for the next few days/weeks/months to get things done. I often don't have time for this so most of my brain farts don't get very far. I actually have to be very economical about what I pursue even or I won't get anything done at all. For most of the ideas I have I don't even have enough bandwidth to validate if they are even good ideas.

    This is frustrating to me. And fundamentally, this frustration is what drives creativity. You get stuck on some problem, grind away at it, and then you find a solution and your brain rewards you with a little endorphin rush. We're not very complicated. That incidentally is also the business model behind social media: AI driven endorphin rushes in the form of an addictive feed of stuff. And that AI is mind numbingly stupid in comparison.

    So, I don't see AI as a threat but as a massive enabler for me that I can delegate to, cross check ideas with, ask to provide me with some inspiration, explore new concepts with, etc. GPT-3 is already quite good in a limited way but from what I've read about GPT-4, I've seen nothing yet. And I'm sure we'll have GPT 5,6,7 and so on leap frog what is possible in a relatively short time frame. Not to mention the countless other companies that are working on competing AIs.

    So, yes, AI is going to change lots of things and I think that's great. Can't wait. Can I fast forward ten years or so?

  • by gumballindie on 3/26/23, 7:20 AM

    Finally, a tool to replace facebook “research” cringe.

  • by HervalFreire on 3/26/23, 8:12 AM

    So does this scenario prove that GPT4 is a stochastic parrot or that the entire medical field of doctors are stochastic parrots?