Hacker News Reader

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

In this case, the problem would have been blindly following the doctor's advice – not ChatGPT's. The medical professional was wrong. Lethally wrong. If there is a lesson here about the trustworthiness of AI, then there is also a lesson about the trustworthiness of the average doctor.

View on HN

In the future we will need an *ist word for when someone unreasonably privileges the opinion of a human over the output of an equally competent (or better) AI.

We need that word now, considering how GPT-4 is performing at major exams compared to human professionals.

GPT-4 is better than the average human professional today. This isn't some hypothetical future we are talking about.

Better than the average human professional...at taking tests.

Not better at being a useful doctor able to intake a patient and get to the bottom of an unspecified disease. Both doctors and AI are generally poor at doctoring. Only a small fraction of doctors are good at being doctors. No LLM is good at being a doctor.

At a subset of tests the GPT was most suitable for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com