I don't understand this reasoning. Randomizing people to AI vs standard of care is expensive and risky. Checking whether the AI can pass hypothetical scenarios seems like a perfectly reasonable approach to researching the safety of these models before running a clinical trial.

The number of people who die each year just in the United States for causes attributable to medical errors is believed to be in the hundreds of thousands. A doctor’s opinion is not the golden yardstick.

It may be interesting to study if there is some kind of signal in general health outcomes in the US since the popularization of ChatGPT for this purpose. It may be a while before we have enough data to know. I could see it going either way.

We have standards of care for a reason. They are the most basic requirements of testing. Ignoring them is not just being a bad doctor, its unethical treatment. Its the absolute bare minimum of a medical system.

You're joking right? This is the 'testing on mice' phase and it failed and your idea is to start dosing humans just to see what happens.

Feeding scenarios is not without challenges as some things, for example, smell, would be "pre-processed" by humans before fed into the AI, I think.

That type of experimental set-up is forbidden due to ethical concerns. It goes against medical ethics to give patients treatment that you think might be worse.

I don't understand what you're proposing. How would you design such a study in a way that would pass IRB?

This 'preference' is sociopathic, illegal, and stupid.

Yea, that is exactly why I don't like this.

These "experts", they have no problem to tout anecdotes when it serves them..