this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2025
896 points (99.0% liked)
People Twitter
8280 readers
1261 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 39 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
But if ChatGPT is able to pass med school it must mean AI is good?
I could pass that too if I had all the books and can sift through them in seconds.
Have you ever had an open book exam?
Open books exams are bounded by time, something an AI has plenty of, ridiculously more than a person, to say it's giving them an advantage is missing the absurdity of the situation as it also had much more time to train and "study", and yet it produces the results it does.
What results? We are assuming it passes med school, so the result must be good.
The results people get from prompting current models, which hallucinate, a lot, and that's not really a fixable issue
load more comments
(2 replies)
Ok but my counter argument is that if they pass their exam with GPT, shouldn't they be allowed to practice medicine with GPT in hand?
Preferably using a model that's been specifically trained to support physicians.
I've seen doctors that are outright hazards to patients, hopefully this would limit the amount of damage from the things they misremember...
EDIT: ITT bunch of AI deniers who can't provide a single valid argument, but that doesn't matter because they have strong feelings. Be sure to slam the "this doesn't align with how I want my world to be" button!
Out of curiosity, i put in some organic chemistry practice questions into ChatGPT just now, it got 1 out of 5 correct. Im not an outright hater of AI (I do dislike how its being forced into some things and makes the original product worse, and the enviromental impact it has) but i'm sure in the future it'll be able to do some wonderous things.
As it stands though, I would rather my doc do a review of literature rather than trusting ChatGPT alone.
Out of curiosity, what questions?
Organic chemistry isn't a subject for a medical degree, at least not in my neck of the woods (we have biochemistry) so I'm not super familiar with the subject, but curious enough to see what it got wrong.
In the USA, organic chemistry is required by the vast majority of medical schools, and organic chemistry I is a prereq for biochemistry in most colleges.
Your average applicant is going to have Orgo1/2 and biochemistry though.
As far as the questions go, one was a multistep synthesis (It seemed to screw up markovnikov vs anti markovnikov addition if I had to guess where it went wrong).
It didnt seem to do well with HNMR, or Fischer projections, it also got a mechanism of ring breaking wrong.
It did get the question right regarding stability of chair conformations though.
I cant post the exact questions as im not home where my old Ochem book is, but those are the jists.
It seems to struggle with the more visual problems.
Edit: The AAMC has a list of requirements for med schools, so far I've seen... 3 that dont require Ochem and use biochem in its place? Thats certainly not all of them, but theyre also certainly a extremely small minority. Although again, most universities also have Ochem1 as a prereq for Biochem. And if you're college is an ACS compliant university, they'll make you take ochem 2 for biochemistry also. Which is lame.
load more comments
(26 replies)