Top
Best
New

Posted by engmarketer 11 hours ago

I used Claude Code to get a second opinion on my MRI(antoine.fi)
359 points | 467 commentspage 8
gaolei8888 9 hours ago|
I have already done that several times, and I found the comments from ChatGTP/Claude, is absolutely bullshit.
anon291 4 hours ago||
I've found ChatGPT to be much better at medicine than doctors. For example, every winter, I would get itchy toes. I was quite concerned because they could be quite painful. But the symptoms were not obvious and they wouldn't occur often. The toes would swell up and become quite red and uncomfortable. One doctor suggested gout, which was not the right diagnosis, because I have no urea problems. Others suggested a skin cream.

No... I told ChatGPT exactly what I told you and it came up with the answer: Chillblains, which should have been obvious given everything I described, yet general practitioners were clueless and often reached for high intervention approaches

Harmless condition fixed by wearing socks. I brought it up with the same GPs who had misdiagnosed me and none had heard of it.

Of course, I'm cognizant that it could be mistaken, but a hospital fed my diabetic aunt a normal sugar diet while she was in a coma and forgot to give her metformin, so I mean, it's not like humans can't be retarded as well. The difference is no one gets offended when I point out ChatGPT has the capacity to be an idiot. Instead they just fix it.

simianwords 11 hours ago||
Everyone talking about how doctors know better or have some context that is not shown here.

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.

sxg 8 hours ago|
> But are you all forgetting that they literally injected a homeopathic drug on the author?

I'm no fan of pseudoscience either, but this is where things get blurry. The placebo effect is real even if patients are aware of it. If you give a patient a homeopathic drug while informing them of potential side effects (if any), and then they feel better, have you hurt them? Or have you helped them?

I personally have no interest in trying homeopathic medicines, but the reality is that many patients do take these and are adamant they help. As long as any risks are communicated and there are no serious side effects, it's difficult to make an argument against their use in patients who report a subjective benefit.

zephen 9 hours ago||
> There's something incredibly peaceful about being in the hands of an expert you trust.

I want to know if this is a religious thing, or is related to never having had multiple doctors so bad it seemed like they were actively trying to kill you, or both. I've never had this peaceful experience personally within the realm of healthcare.

> AI can absolutely shatter that feeling in an uncomfortable way

Good. Reality is always good.

> but I don't know if I can fully trust AI either.

WTF??!? Why on earth would anybody ever think they could fully trust LLMs? Even their most vocal proponents concede they aren't infallible panaceas.

hennell 10 hours ago||
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.
cube00 10 hours ago||
It gets worse when they challenge your solutions by feeding it back into the LLM and sending the response on to you, arguing with an LLM is exhausting, arguing by proxy with a human parroting its responses is excruciating.

On the plus side when they do this they can't flood your calendar with those "quick chat" meetings because they know they won't be able to hold a conversation on the issue beyond the first minute.

lukeinator42 7 hours ago||
This happened to me on a paper I submitted recently where it was clear the reviewers used AI. Revising a paper based on LLM review is also exhausting, haha.
NegativeK 9 hours ago|||
I've seen coworkers do this to each other when their expertise is in different domains.

I find that AI can be incredibly useful, but just text dumping its output into a conversation feels insulting.

willsmith72 10 hours ago|||
True, but this was a problem long before AI (read this article, met this guy at a conference who told me x, my boss said blah)

AI probably exacerbates it but crappy managers exist regardless

nitwit005 10 hours ago||
Before maybe you had to deal with someone hiring schetchy consultants once in a while, but now the managers have a limitless well of dubious answers to draw on at any time.
darkwater 9 hours ago||
But now you have a new tool in the upmanagement toolbox: subtlely tell them to implement their idea in prod with Claude Code, and see it for themselves.
VeninVidiaVicii 8 hours ago||
Yeah dealing with this now, where my CTO is shipping features that are producing plausible results but just wrong. So, now I gotta spend all day explaining the math behind certain features to her, and she copies and pastes it to Claude.
duxup 9 hours ago|||
Sometimes I get a lot of "Do you want me to work up how the UI will look."

They give me what they'd like the UI to look like, but none of the actual content fits outside the one situation they're thinking of.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Thankfully where I work now everyone is good about taking no for an answer.

mystifyingpoi 9 hours ago||
Fight fire with fire. It's over the top passive aggresive, but it works. Whenever I get a JIRA ticket that was clearly AI generated and is 10x too many words, I tell Claude to respond to that ticket with my actual real opinion or suggestion, but make it 10x more words.
myshapeprotocol 4 hours ago||
[flagged]
thousandflowers 6 hours ago||
[flagged]
rainydesert 9 hours ago||
[flagged]
loadcurve 9 hours ago||
[flagged]
kburman 6 hours ago|
[flagged]
More comments...