> "An AI and a pair of human doctors were each given the same standard electronic health record to read"
This is handicapping the human doctors abilities. There is a lot more information a human doctor can gather even with a brief observation of the patient.
> But it is not curtains for emergency doctors yet, the researchers said. The study only tested humans against AIs looking at patient data that can be communicated via text. The AI’s reading of signals, such as the patient’s level of distress and their visual appearance, were not tested. That means the AI was performing more like a clinician producing a second opinion based on paperwork.
> That means the AI was performing more like a clinician producing a second opinion based on paperwork.
That actually seems like a good application – automatically get a quick AI second opinion for everything; if it's dissenting the first/human medic can re-review, or comment why it's slop, or get a third/second-human opinion.
(I'm assuming most cases would be You're absolutely right, that's an astute diagnosis.)
Agreed. I think the best use of this sort of tech is to use both to their strengths. Use AI to go over the record and suggest diagnoses which you have the doctor review after observing the patient.
The other thing is that common issues are common. I have to wonder how much that ultimately biases both the doctor and the LLM. If you diagnose someone that comes in with a runny nose and cough as having the flu you will likely be right most of the time.
Chat seems like a really bad way to get patient information. You'll miss out on various cues doctors will use to diagnose you. People can get ashamed of their symptoms and may try to hide them.
You think that they have “days leading up to consultation”? Please don’t be so disingenuous; I’m sure you know exactly what the person you’re replying to meant.
My doctor makes me wait for weeks, then googles my symptoms in front of me, asks me if I checked on the internet first before I came and then gives me the first google result as an answer, as well as suggests me to wait longer. He does this several times.
When I got tired of this I just lied to the emergency line and was admitted to hospital based on my lie, and they discovered a brain tumor which explained the other stuff.
Bonus, health networks now push doctors to use AI transcription software for the EHR entries. Doctors and nurses like it because they don't have to type it up. But it is a complete shitshow on whether the records are reviewed for transcription errors which happen quite often
Now feed a flawed transcripted into an AI diagnosis system and bam-o. The AI will treat it as gospel, while the doctor may go wait what.
This is the real question. If they are serious about not doing something like this again, they NEED to look at what process failed and let something like this get proposed, designed, implemented and pushed to production. Usually things get reviewed at each stage. Did the people who pushed back on this get steam rolled? If no one pushed back, that's an even serious culture question and the entire org would need training.
A serious "we won't do it again", needs to be accompanied by a COE on this for identifying what went wrong, and identifying what guardrails can be put in place and then actually implementing them.
That's a tough one. In the big meeting? In the small meeting? "Officially" push back? Encouraged to make the push back unofficial? Etc. Even just internally, it can be hard to quantify. From internal > external, more so.
The number of times I’ve had to defend someone else’s customers let alone my own is exhausting.
And that dynamic is only allowed within close circles.
I’ve found once “the decision” is made, the bigger the subsequent meeting, protests are often swept under the rug.
On most occasions the worst part is that folks intentionally withhold information to get their way. And thats real hard to compete against without making an ass out of yourself, or losing the trust of others.
It seems like this was implemented as a way to insert tips, and then abused to insert ads, so the developers involved might not have been aware of that part until later?
Owning a decision means you have something at stake if things go wrong. What would happen to Jack if this decision turns out to be wrong? Any consequences?
Are the model weights burned into the silicon / part of the architecture? Or can you update the model weights on these chips?
If they cannot be updated, these chips will be outdated the moment they are made given the breakneck speed at which new and improved models are introduced.
Incredible documentary about the politics around EV's made before Tesla's became mainstream.
People were demanding and protesting asking GM to let time buy their EV'1 after the lease, but they destroyed all the cars. So did Toyota for the EV RAV4's.
No, you are paying to use Claude code… it uses the model underneath, but you aren’t paying for raw model usage. For whatever reason, Anthropic thinks this is the best way to divide up their market.
They want to charge more for direct access to the model.
Why would anyone pay a subscription for barebones LLM agent?
You can beat that drum all you want, but you know it's bullshit. People pay the subscription for the AI, not the tool that consumes it. That tool being crap is why everyone started using third-party tools.
The reason they are blocking third-party usage is they want developers to use only their models and no competitors.
That's not up to you or me. I think it's pretty clear by the phrase "Claude Code subscription" that it's meant for only "Claude Code". Why are you confused?
This could be so easily abused by companies who spend thousands of dollars per month for API costs you could just reverse engineer it and use the subscription tokens to get that down to a few hundred
Netflix would not even exist if you could just freely download all of the media to your computer and play it anytime because of licensing agreements and other factors. So you can think that they are wrong but that's not really rooted in reality or practicality.
Can I script and scrape Claude Code to provide the exact same data for consumption by the banned client? (This sounds like an interesting challenge for Claude Code to try...)
I don't think they are confused. They are simply challenging the assertion that the model should not work with other software. Which is fair because there is a lot of precedent around whether a service can dictate how it must be consumed. It's not a simple answer and there are good reasons for both sides. Whichever path we take will have wide consequences and shape our future in a very distinct way. So it is an important decision, and ultimately up to us, as a society to influence and guide.
IDK if Anthropic wants to offer a service at below cost, I don't think they should gate keep which client you access that service over. Or in other terms, I won't use a service that locks me into a client I don't like.
How do you draw that conclusion? If Anthropic wants to offer a service at below cost, they seem a lot more justified in restricting how and where they subsidize usage.
That seems mutual. They don’t want you to use this service with an arbitrary client and you don’t want to use this service that won’t allow an arbitrary client. So both of you don’t want the relationship. Seems fine.
For my part, I’m fine understanding that bundling allows for discounting and I would prefer to enable that.
