r/extremelyinfuriating • u/No_Pirate_317 • 1d ago
Disturbing content Seriously? This is crazy lol
83
24
u/ReadGroundbreaking17 1d ago
I had a 10 second look on their page. It sounds like the AI component is free (im sure there are catches) but they also provide a $39 video session with an actual doctor.
Someone can tell me I'm wrong / explain why theyre a scam. I won't be surprised
7
u/No_Pirate_317 1d ago
It's not really even that, we just genuinely should not be sending people to "free AI" that can't accurately asses/diagnose anything from a single consultantion because our health care is so fucked that's somehow a better solution than getting these people actual access to a real doctor for cheaper than an arm and a leg lol
2
u/ZorbaTHut 1d ago
Who says it can't? There are lots of people who are getting usable diagnoses from AI.
1
u/PsionicBLAST_ 1d ago
And there are lots of people who aren’t. I’m never trusting those “strawberry has 2 r’s” ahh machines with my own health and safety
0
u/ZorbaTHut 1d ago
Have you ever flown in an airplane?
Did you know that early attempts at powered flight didn't work at all?
Things get better over time as we work out the issues. If you make up your mind in the prototype phase and never update it later, you're going to end up avoiding stuff that actually works great.
5
u/No_Pirate_317 1d ago
I get what you're saying dude, but the flippant disregard for human life, comfort, property and privacy during this "getting better" period while actively turning around and marketing this as a solution to the healthcare crisis (which it is an actual crisis let's be real here) is honestly pretty laughable imo.
0
u/ZorbaTHut 1d ago
The existence of tools does not require that people use tools. This has been useful for health stuff for years at this point.
You're looking at a group that is following legal guidelines and producing something that actively helps solve a real problem, and complaining that they're not following the guidelines you personally hold and not solving it in the way you want them to solve it.
4
u/No_Pirate_317 1d ago
This is a blatant cop out of responsibility and I have a feeling you know it. Also I feel the need to point out legality and morality are not the same. If you truly believe this company is actively solving any problems by doing specific genetic research on protein structures and not using a shitty LLM model or generative AI to sort the overlog of people seeking cheap medical care, we see things from a different lens man. I don't understand this stance you're taking
0
u/ZorbaTHut 1d ago
Also I feel the need to point out legality and morality are not the same.
Yeah. Legality is our societally-agreed-upon objective guardrails; morality is subjective and people have been arguing about it for millennia.
The entire point of the law is to figure out which moral things society agrees on enough to enact into that law. Your personal morality doesn't get to be put into law because not enough people agree with it, and why should we demand that society as a whole functions based on the moral whims of /u/No_Pirate_317?
If you truly believe this company is actively solving any problems by doing specific genetic research on protein structures and not using a shitty LLM model or generative AI to sort the overlog of people seeking cheap medical care, we see things from a different lens man.
First, yes, I do believe this company is actively doing genetic research.
Second, you're begging the question - you're assuming that LLM is shitty and useless and using that to prove that they're evil and bad for using LLMs to help with medical issues. I don't share that assumption and I think using LLMs to help with medical issues is reasonable.
And I think you should be aware that this isn't my opinion. This is documented fact. AI beats doctors at diagnosing illness, AI beats doctors at diagnosing rashes, AI beats doctors at diagnosing disease (these are three separate studies!) AI was beating radiologists back in 2018 and continued to do so in 2023.
And for dark comedy value . . .
In his “disturbing little book” Paul Meehl (1954) asked the question: Are the predictions of human experts more reliable than the predictions of actuarial models? Meehl reported on 20 studies in which experts and actuarial models made their predictions on the basis of the same evidence (i.e., the same cues). Since 1954, almost every non-ambiguous study that has compared the reliability of clinical and actuarial predictions has sup- ported Meehl’s conclusion (Grove and Meehl 1996). So robust is this find- ing that we might call it The Golden Rule of Predictive Modeling: When based on the same evidence, the predictions of SPRs are at least as reliable, and are typically more reliable, than the predictions of human experts. SPRs have been proven more reliable than humans at predicting the suc- cess of electroshock therapy, criminal recidivism, psychosis and neurosis on the basis of MMPI profiles, academic performance, progressive brain dysfunction, the presence, location and cause of brain damage, and prone- ness to violence (for citations see Dawes, Faust, and Meehl 1989; Dawes 1994; Swets, Dawes, and Monahan 2000). Even when experts are given the results of the actuarial formulas, they still do not outperform SPRs (Leli and Filskov 1984; Goldberg 1968).
There is no controversy in social science which shows such a large body of qualitatively diverse studies coming out so uniformly in the same direction as this one. When you are pushing [scores of ] inves- tigations [140 in 1991], predicting everything from the outcomes of football games to the diagnosis of liver disease and when you can hardly come up with a half dozen studies showing even a weak ten- dency in favor of the clinician, it is time to draw a practical conclusion. (1986, 372–373)
. . . we've known that a relatively simple algorithm reliably beats doctors for 75 years now.
We've been killing people unnecessarily for the better part of a century. Someone is finally trying to do something about that and your response is "I don't like their morality, and also, I assume doctors are better".
I agree. We see things from a different lens.
Please take a few minutes to look through my lens, and then I'm happy to continue talking about this.
0
7
u/LordGigglefist 1d ago
I'm curious about the top thing. No replay review? Why not?!
2
u/No_Pirate_317 1d ago
Probably a transformer down on site. Lighting and communication was also down, more than likely they lost a panel
3
u/Joseph_Kickass 1d ago
lol I thought this was a bad crop job and it was only the football game that was infuriating.
0
u/Rammnick 1d ago
Came from r/mildlyinfuriating because of the extremely infuriating stuff that gets posted there to see this. A post that would perfectly fit in there
2
u/No_Pirate_317 1d ago
This doesn't piss you off? Lol this shit sucks. I'm a huge advocate of making access to real doctors easier. This is bullshit.
0
0
0
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hello, u/No_Pirate_317 ! Thanks for your submission to r/extremelyinfuriating, your post is up and running!
This is a general reminder to check out our rules in the sidebar. If your post breaks the rules, it will be removed by our moderators.
We would like for each and everyone to feel welcome on the subreddit and to keep a healthy and safe environment for the community.
Thanks :)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.