this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
400 points (85.7% liked)

Technology

55773 readers
3907 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
enu
[email protected]
L4s
400
ChatGPT generates cancer treatment plans that are full of errors — Study finds that ChatGPT provided false information when asked to design cancer treatment plans (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 10 months ago by L4s to c/technology
130 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

ChatGPT generates cancer treatment plans that are full of errors — Study finds that ChatGPT provided false information when asked to design cancer treatment plans::Researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital found that cancer treatment plans generated by OpenAI's revolutionary chatbot were full of errors.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] eager_eagle 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I agree, but only because they used GPT 3.5 and not 4. Not that I think 4 would have been perfect or that you should follow medical advice from LLMs right now, but it would have been much more accurate.

[–] eager_eagle 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I thought it was 4 before looking into it. It seems they ran the experiment in the same month GPT-4 was released, that's unfortunate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah what's interesting is it was just published this week even though they did the tests in April. April is like 100 AI years ago.

[–] eager_eagle 2 points 10 months ago

That's actually a short time for peer-reviewed work. Most things being published now, unless they're in pre-print servers, are results from studies that likely started at least 6 months ago.