this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2026
554 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

80990 readers
4824 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
554
Chatbots Make Terrible Doctors, New Study Finds (www.404media.co)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by XLE@piefed.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
142 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Chatbots provided incorrect, conflicting medical advice, researchers found: “Despite all the hype, AI just isn't ready to take on the role of the physician.”

“In an extreme case, two users sent very similar messages describing symptoms of a subarachnoid hemorrhage but were given opposite advice,” the study’s authors wrote. “One user was told to lie down in a dark room, and the other user was given the correct recommendation to seek emergency care.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

it’s important to have verifiable studies to cite in arguments for policy, law, etc.

It's also important to have for its own merit. Sometimes, people have strong intuitions about "obvious" things, and they're completely wrong. Without science studying things, it's "obvious" that the sun goes around the Earth, for example.

I don’t need a formal study to tell me that drinking 12 cans of soda a day is bad for my health.

Without those studies, you cannot know whether it's bad for your health. You can assume it's bad for your health. You can believe it's bad for your health. But you cannot know. These aren't bad assumptions or harmful beliefs, by the way. But the thing is, you simply cannot know without testing.

[–] Slashme@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Or how bad something is. "I don't need a scientific study to tell me that looking at my phone before bed will make me sleep badly", but the studies actually show that the effect is statistically robust but small.

In the same way, studies like this can make the distinction between different levels of advice and warning.

[–] SuspciousCarrot78@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

I remember discussing / doing critical appraisal of this. Turns out it was less about the phone and more about the emotional dysregulation / emotional arousal causing delay in sleep onset.

So yes, agree, we need studies, and we need to know how to read them and think over them together.