I really dread the possibility that these people will eventually become engineers, doctors, achitects, and so on. The exams exist for a reason.
You’re absolutely right to feel frustrated about the sentence. What started as a simple parking ticket fine has escalated into a public and live televised execution, and that’s on me. Thanks for sticking with it through this journey. Your feedback is completely fair and I will try to give more legally correct and relevant answers in the future.
🤣🤣😂😂
.
You don’t need to cheat when the bar association decides to be lazy and use AI to write the exam itself.
Shit is going to get really bad when a ton of medical professionals have no idea how to do major parts of their jobs because they got ChatGPT to do it. I guess that we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
I find it unlikely that this will happen for roles like doctors and nurses. There are large practical components of training, if they didn’t have the basic knowledge needed it would show through pretty quickly.
Our board exams can only cover so much, so there are little things that can slip under the radar. Like I said in another comment, one of my classmates in medical school used Chat GPT to summarize the reading and it swapped the warning signs for 2 different neurological conditions, one of which is transient and can be fixed with medications, the other is one that can be lethal if not recognized quickly.
Residency training will weed some of them out, but if they never see/recognize those zebras until they show up on the autopsy, that patient still suffered for their laziness and cavalier attitude towards their education.
Doctors spend months or years being supervised. If a doctor cheated on one test then maybe it would slip through, but I see this as no different to just forgetting some part of some learning from years ago, which surely happens.
If a doctor cheated on every exam, their supervisor is going to notice really quickly.
But once they get to be supervised, it’s “too late to fail them” (/cynic)
I think we might overestimate how qualified a junior doctor is after doing all the exams. This article (from 2009, well before LLMs) says junior doctors screw up in 8% of prescriptions they write, with half of the mistakes “potentially significant”. This is after any chance at having a supervising doctor review. It says pharmacists generally save the day by spotting the errors.
I also found local numbers showing about 16% of junior doctors never make it through training (the article is saying it’s actually 40%, but 16% is their “normal”). That will include burnout and other reasons for not continuing, but I’m pretty sure with such a decent proportion of people dropping out you can expect the ones that haven’t taken in enough understanding despite passing their exams are commonly dropping out as part of that group, and though LLMs may have increased the pool I doubt we can assume these people make it through training without learning what they need to know. Becoming a doctor is just so intense that it doesn’t seem likely.
As has been pointed out by someone else, our concern should probably lie in those that pass exams then go on to do medical (or other) roles without any supervision period.
Part of my concern is that APPs like nurse practitioners that have no supervised practice as part of their training are going to become even more poorly educated. Their curriculum is already algorithm-based, and because of the Nursing lobby pushing for more and more independence for NP’s, they have dwindling physician oversight requirements (in some places a physician only needs to audit 10% of their notes and never actually lay eyes on the patient themselves.)
These Nurse Practitioners are presumably already required to be highly skilled nurses? Please tell me that’s true 😑
Nope. They can (and these days often do) go straight from their nursing degree to an NP program with no real work experience.
Oh great. Just what I wanted to hear.
It already is happening:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1253(25)00133-5/abstract
Ah this is a different risk than I thought was being implied.
This is saying if a doctor relies on AI to assess results, they lose their skill in finding them by themselves.
Honestly this could go either way. Maybe it’s bad, but if machine learning can outperform doctors, then it could just be a “you won’t be carrying a calculator around with you your whole life” type situation.
ETA: there’s a book Noise: A flaw in human judgement, that details how whenever you have human judgement you have a wide range of results for the same thing, and generally this is bad. If machine learning is more consistent, the standard of care is likely to rise on average.
Machine Learning is not LLM.
It’s not but the linked paper I responded to doesn’t mention LLMs?
The thread is about ChatGPT, which is an LLM bot, hence the confusion?
Myself and my classmates (respiratory therapy) use AI to put together study guides, flash cards, and practice tests for us, using our lecture recordings, notes, and PowerPoints as reference material. It hasn’t hallucinated anything incorrect into our study guides. I’m no fan of LLMs and the like by any means but it’s been a huge time saver in this capacity. Less time spent formatting bullshit means more time for studying
Medical student here. Some of my classmates did the same thing with summaries and study guides and it scrambled a couple of fine but extremely important details. The mistake meant that my classmate mixed up two presentations of neurological problems, one of which is transient and fixable with medications and the other is something that can rapidly become lethal if not recognized fast enough.
RT’s are precious resources for physicians, but the stakes for us fucking up are profoundly higher. (And if the RT does something wrong and the patient suffers harm, it’s still likely to land on the physician to some extent in terms of liability.)
I get that, but to a degree it’s also on the student for not verifying the output either. One of my classmates has dyslexia (he does the flashcard sets) and makes frequent errors. Thankfully our class shares the burden of making study materials because we all act as a filter of sorts for him. Helping him notice the errors before he commits them to memory, and allowing us to have them edited with correct information. Same goes for AI stuff, you gotta double check it. Editing a few lines is still a lot quicker than creating these resources from scratch
The problem is that most people don’t double check or they check a couple things then think “good enough”, and turn off the critical thinking part of their brain. That’s how lawyers ended up submitting a case brief with fake case citations. The “citations” look real enough, but to verify it, you have to go read the source yourself.
This goes for people citing studies without reading them first. There are a lot of studies that squidge the numbers around to make things look better and you have to look for things like how they parsed the data for the results and conclusions. I’ve personally made pharma reps very uncomfortable by digging into things like how they did or did not parse complications by sex (ie one complication was parsed by sex, but the other was combined)
I may only be in a respiratory therapy program, but I’ve been an EMT for 10 years prior to that. If that experience is worth anything, I’d say verifying information before making a clinical decision is a far more important habit to build than memorizing two obscure values for a test (that you’ll almost certainly forget by the time you’re a licensed physician).
An AI study guide is liable to make mistakes, but the bigger problem here is a prospective physician who can’t be bothered to make sure that they had the correct information before acting on it. Ditto for the lawyers or researchers relying on AI to do the work for them (an inappropriate use of AI imo). Throwing a practice test together and drafting legal paperwork/writing an academic piece are planets apart
The AI alleviates the process of critical thinking though. I make my own review notebooks for my boards and for clinical rotations by taking the time to figure out what’s important and what I don’t know to put those things in my notebooks. I write these out by hand on paper, so I have to be judicious about what is going to actually be important, and just the process of making those priorities helps me to have a better understanding of my own deficiencies.
Making a good study guide requires critical thinking skills, and if that gets outsourced to AI, that means the critical thinking isn’t being done by the human that needs to learn that skill.
I feel like people are overly antagonistic towards the technology, when the ire really should be directed at the companies. The tech has problems, like all tech does, but it also has its uses. Saw someone earlier today that had created a newsfeed with headlines rewritten to not be clickbaity bullshit.
Why did you post this message 4 times?
Some clients do this. No idea why. Have had it happen myself.
Yep, as the joke suggests:
Yet people, even Science Communicators like Hank Green on YouTube have been making claims like this. In a recent video on his personal channel he claimed “AI” will only get better from here. On Sci Show he claimed GPT could compete in the Maths Olympiad.
…it’s NOT able to compete in the maths Olympiad.
Hank Green is spreading misinformation.
I find it weird you’re criticizing Hank Green in your comment but use 2 links that don’t directly reference him at all and in fact the 2nd link uses AI generated art and summaries of the article. Hank Green has had a varied and nuanced take on AI that largely lands on it being a negative for society
Here’s him calling it a bubble: https://youtu.be/Q0TpWitfxPk
Him saying AI generated videos are bad: https://youtu.be/Vz0oQ0v0W10
Talking about AI datacenters being a problem: https://youtu.be/39YO-0HBKtA
All within the past 2 months
He’s got another one explaining how he moved his stock specifically to hedge against the collapse of the US economy.
I gave the two specific statements that I’m saying are incorrect and provided evidence for that. You feeling weird about me criticising him for endorsing statements that (the links show) aren’t true. I never said all his statements are incorrect. My problem is his beliefs in the two statements I’m pointing out. Hence pointing them out.
You’re putting words in the mouth of someone uninvolved in the conversation. Hank Green wasn’t in anything you posted and you’re slamming him like he is. I posted evidence in contradiction of your baseless statement
Truly, what the fuck are you talking about?
I’m putting words in your mouth? You’re raising AI art and data centers when that’s nothing to do with the two statements I’m talking about.
…and no, the things I posted aren’t responding to Hank Green (I never said they were), they’re about the specific statements. You can go to the latest SciShow episode about Ai and find the Maths Olympiad statement.
You’re doing this because you want to talk past me to show boat for up votes. I don’t care about that man.
You can goto his personal channel and find his lastes video on AI and find his statement saying AI will only get better from here.
You want to have some dumb internet debate and pretend like I’m against Hank Green or pro AI or some shit.
I pointed out two statements that are clearly wrong, that Hank Green is endorsing as true.
I don’t give a shit about all this other crap you’ve raised to muddy the waters. So piss off.
I wrote a comment along these lines, he brought up “agents” in that SciShow episode without directly saying the word, and modern agents are really just a bunch of scripts tied together with an LLM. It’s not that complicated, and they absolutely suck at performing tasks that aren’t narrowly defined. Like you can’t throw it at some issues on GitHub and expect it to actually come up with solutions. People have tried that and the success rates are absurdly low.
SciShow can be incredibly sloppy at times. They had this episode about knitting a while back and lots of knitters basically fired back with “…did you guys try to talk to knitters about this?”
Hank Green seems really affable, it’s hard not to like him (knowing very little about him) but SciShow really needs more rigorous fact checking.
“oh sorry, were you not happy with the response?”
If only she’d laid down her guns.
Fair punishment if they didn’t want to be sentenced to death shouldn’t have broken the law. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. /s
“Rosenberg! That guy could defend an innocent man all the way to death row.” - GTA Vice City
That’s not how the bar works.
Although it might be in the future if some states (California) can’t get their bar finances together.
I wonder who wins ChatGPT prosecutor or ChatGPT attorney. It’s definitely ChatGPT though.
Somehow they’ll both lose.
Whoever wins, we all lose
Skill issue, I managed to get their entire family locked up for 20 years but them only for 5
Shit is going to get really bad when a ton of medical professionals have no idea how to do major parts of their jobs because they got ChatGPT to do it. I guess that we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
There’s some concern, and no doubt LLMs will have an influence, but I don’t think it’s going to be anything major or any different than the C doctors we have now. Don’t underestimate people’s desire to learn and excel on their own and the prestige of institutions in maintaining their academic standards.
Shit is going to get really bad when a ton of medical professionals have no idea how to do major parts of their jobs because they got ChatGPT to do it. I guess that we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
The knee bone’s connected to the leg bone.
The leg bone’s connected to the hip bone.
The hip bone’s connected to my…wrist watch. Uh-oh.
Shit is going to get really bad when a ton of medical professionals have no idea how to do major parts of their jobs because they got ChatGPT to do it. I guess that we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
