>>16633166
Same here but it said I had elephantiasis.
>>16633407
>and cites them
Which is what it should do but I'm concerned doctors will get lazy and just accept whatever the LLM puts out uncritically. Whatever the LLM's accuracy rate, it's still wrong 100 - that rate percent of the time. Since LLMs are quite often in different ways than humans tend to be wrong, having both the LLM and the human doctor make judgements in theory should lead to better outcomes but we know human doctors, because they're human, will get lazy or simply start to defer to what it sees as a medical authority in the LLM.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/sci/

Thread:

Is chatGPT better than doctors nowadays?