Title: "Epic Systems (MyChart)."

E.G. Here's the set of documents uploaded by the customer. Here are my most important highlights (notice that document #68 is an official letter from last year informing the person that form 68d doesn't need to be filled in their specific situation). Here are my takeaways. Here's my recommendation. Apporve or change?

This is genuinely hilarious given what LLMs are.

Basically there needs to be an LLM that can push back.

That wasn't too buried IMHO

Something more complex, more towards clinical psychiatry rather than shoulder to cry on/complaining to friend over coffee (psychologists)? You are playing a russian roulette that model in your case won't hallucinate something harmful, while acting very confidently, more than any relevant doctor would be.

There have been cases of models suggesting suicide for example or general harmful behavior. There is no responsibility, no oversight, no expert to confirm or refute claims. Its just a faster version of reddit threads.

Medical care, at the end of the day, has nothing to do with having a license or not. Its about making the correct diagnosis, in order to administer the correct treatment. Reality does not care about who (or what) made a diagnosis, or how the antibiotic you take was prescribed. You either have the diagnosis, or you do not. The antibiotic helps, or it does not.

Doing this in practice is costly and complicated, which is why society has doctors. But the only thing that actually matters is making the correct decision. And actually, when you test LLMs (in particular o3/gpt-5 and probably gemini 2.5), they are SUPERIOR to individual doctors in terms of medical decisionmaking, at least on benchmarks. That does not mean that they are superior to an entire medical system, or a skillfull attending in a particular speciality, but it does seem imply that they are far from a bad source of medical information. Just like LLMs are good at writing boilerplate code, they are good at boilerplate medical decisions, and the fact is that there is so much medical boilerplate that this skill alone makes it superior to most human doctors. There was one study which tested LLM assisted (I think it was o3) doctors VS LLMs alone (+doctors alone) on a set of cases, and the unassisted LLM did BETTER than doctors, assisted or not.

And so all this medicolegal pearlclutching about how LLMs should not provide medical advice is entirely unfounded when you look at the actual evidence. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest that you should ignore the doctor and listen to chatGPT instead.

And frankly, as a doctor, it really grinds my gears when anyone implies that medical decisions should be a protected domain to our benefit. The point of medicine is not to employ doctors. The point of medicine is to cure patients, by whatever means best serves them. If LLMs take our jobs, because they do a better job than we do, that is a good thing. It is an especially good thing if the general, widely available LLM is the one that does so, and not the expensively licensed "HippocraticGPT-certified" model. Can you imagine anything more frustrating, as a poor kid in the boonies of Bangladesh trying to understand why your mother is sick, than getting told "As a language model I cannot dispense medical advice, please consult your closest healthcare professional".

Medical success is not measured in employment, profits, or legal responsibilities. It is measured in reduced mortality. The means to achieve this is completely irrelevant.

Of course, mental health is a little bit different, and much more nebulous overall. However, from the perspective of someone on the somatic front, overregulation of LLMs is unecessary, and in fact unethical. On average, an LLM will dispense better medical advice than an average person with access to google, which is what it was competing with to begin with. It is an insult to personal liberty and to the Hippocratic oath to support that this should be taken away simply because of some medicolegal bs.

OpenAI is the leading company, if they provide an instance you can use for legal advice, with relative certification etc., it'd be better to trust them rather than another random player. They create the software, the certification and the need for it.

- Paying for a ticket/dvd/stream to see a Ghibli movie

- Training a model on their work without compensating them, then enabling everyone to copy their art style with ~zero effort, flooding the market and diluting the value of their work. And making money in the process.

should be rather obvious. My only hypothesis so far is that a lot of the people in here have a vested interest in not understanding the outrage, so they don't.

> If you didn't want others to read your information you shouldn't have published it on the internet. That's all they're doing at the end of the day, reading it. They're not publishing it as their own, they just used publicly available data to train a model.

There is some nuance here that you fail to notice or you pretend you don't see it :D I can't copy-paste a computer program and resell it without a license. I can't say "Oh I've just read the bits, learned from it and based on this knowledge I created my own computer program that looks exactly the same except the author name is different in the »About...« section" - clearly, some reason has to be used to differentiate reading-learning-creating from simply copying...

What if instead of copy-pasting the digital code, you print it onto a film, pass the light through the film onto ants, make the light kill the ants exposed, and the rest of the ants eventually go away, and now use the dead ants as another film to somehow convert that back to digital data. You can now argue you didn't copy, you taught ants, the ants learned, and they created a new program. But you will fool no one. AI models don't actually learn, they are a different way the data is stored. I think when court decides if a use is fair and transformative enough, it investigates how much effort was put into this transformation: there was a lot of effort put into creating the AI, but once it was created, the effort put into any single work is nearly null, just the electricity, bandwidth, storage.

There's HIPAA but AI firms have ignored copyright laws, so ignoring HIPAA or making consent mandatory is not a big leap from there.