But I don’t know if I should be denied access because of those people.
That's the majority of people though, if you really think that I assume you wouldn't have a problem with needing to be licenced to have this kind of access, right?
I think they can design it to minimize misinformation or at least blind trust.
There's no way to design it to minimise misinformation, the "ground truth" problem of LLM alignment is still unsolved.
The only system we currently have to allow people to verify they know what they are doing is through licencing: you go to training, you are tested that you understand the training, and you are allowed to do the dangerous thing. Are you ok with needing this to be able to access a potentially dangerous tool for the untrained?
If you want working regulation for this, it will need to focus on warnings and damage mitigation, not denying access.
If what you're suggesting is a license that would cost money and/or a non-trivial amount of time to obtain, it's a nonstarter. That's how you create an unregulated black market and cause more harm than leaving the situation alone would have. See: the wars on drugs, prostitutes, and alcohol.
Did you previously write this exact comment before?
What evidence do you have that providing your health information to this company will help you or anyone (other than those with financial interest in the company)?
There is a very real, near definite, chance that giving your, and others', health data to this company will hurt you and others.
Will you still hold this, "I personally don’t care who has access to my health data", position?
Perhaps you were given some medication that is later proven harmful. Maybe there’s a sign in your blood test results that in future will strongly correlate with a condition that emerges in your 50s. Maybe a study will show that having no appendix correlates with later issues.
How confident are you that the data will never be used against you by future insurance, work screening, dating apps, immigration processes, etc
It seems like an easy fix with legislation, at least outside the US, though. Mandatory insurance for all with reasonable banded rates, and maximum profit margins for insurers?
1. Is transexual but does not tell anybody they are and it is also not blatantly obvious
2. Writes down in a health record they are transexual (instead of whatever sex they are now)
3. Someone doxxes they/them medical records
4. Because of 3, and only because of 3, people find out that said person is transexual
5. And then ... the government decides to persecute they/them
Let's be real, you're really stretching it here. You're talking about a 0.1% of a 0.1% of a 0.1% of a 0.1% of a 0.1% situation here.
Your comment is extraordinarily naive.
You could try to answer that instead of making up a strawman.
Dialogue 101 but some people still ignore it.
Maybe you don't know but your car insurance drops you due to the risk you'll have a cardiac event while driving. Their AI flagged you.
You need a new job but the same AI powers the HR screening and denies you because you'll cost more and might have health problems. You'd never know why.
You try to take out a second on the house to pay for expenses, just to get back on your feet, but the AI-powered risk officer judges your payback potential to be %.001 underneath the target and are denied.
The previously treatable heart condition is now dire due to the additional stress of no job, no car and no house and the financial situation continues to erode.
You apply for assistance but are denied because the heart condition is treatable and you're then obviously capable of working and don't meet the standard.
Right. So able bodied, and the gender and race least associated with violence from the state.
> being discriminated against for insurance if you have a drug habit
"drug habit", Why choose an example that is often admonished as a personal failing? How about we say the same, but have something wholly, inarguably, outside of your control, like race, be the discriminating factor?
You medical records may be your DNA.
The US once had a racist legal principle called the "one drop rule": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
Now imagine an, lets say 'sympathetic to the Nazi agenda', administration takes control of the US gov's health and state sanctioned violence services. They decide to use those tools to address all of the, what they consider, 'undesirables'.
Your DNA says you have "one drop" of the undesirable's blood, some ancient ancestor you were unaware of, and this admin tells you they are going to discriminate against your insurance because of it based on some racist psuedoscience.
You say, "but I thought i was a 30 something WHITE male!!" and they tell you "welp, you were wrong, we have your medical records to prove it", you get irate that somehow your medical records left the datacenter of that llm company you liked to have make funny cat pictures for you and got in their hands, and they claim your behavior caused them to fear for their lives and now you are in a detention center or a shallow grave.
"That's an absurd exaggeration." You may say, but the current admin is already removing funding, or entire agencies, based on policy(DEI etc) and race(singling out Haitian and Somali immigrants), how is it much different from Jim Crow era policies like redlining?
If you find yourself thinking, "I'm a fitness conscious 30 something white male, why should I care?", it can help to develop some empathy, and stop to think "what if I was anything but a fitness conscious 30 something white male?"
>>>>>> Are you giving your vitals to Sam Altman just like that?
>>>>> Yes, if it will help me and others
>>>> What evidence do you have that providing your health information to this company will help you or anyone (other than those with financial interest in the company)
>>> I’m definitely a privacy fist person, but can you explain how health data could hurt you, besides obvious things like being discriminated against for insurance if you have a drug habit or whatever.
>> [explanation of why it might be worrisome]
> These points seem to be arguments against giving your health data to anybody, not just to an AI company.
I did not make any claims that it was useless; the context I was responding to was someone being dubious the there were risks after being asked whether they had any reason to assume that it would be beneficial to share specific info, and following that a conversation ensued about why it might make sense to err on the side of caution (independently of whether the company happens to be focused on AI).
To be explicit , I'm not taking a stance on whether the experiences cited elsewhere in the thread constitute sufficient evidence. My point isn't that there is no conceivable benefit, but that the baseline should be caution about sharing medical info, and then figuring out if there's enough of a reason to choose otherwise.
In this case, I suspect that the classic biases of HN (pro-privacy and anti-ai) might interact to dismiss the value that can be provided by a specialized medical llm/ agent (despite indications that an unspecialised one is already helpful!) while rightly pointing out the risks of sharing sensitive data.
‘Being able to access people’s medical records is just another tool in law enforcement’s toolbox to prosecute people for stigmatized care'
They are already using the legal system in order to force their way into your medical records to prosecute you under their new 'anti-abortion' rulings.
https://pennsylvaniaindependent.com/reproductive_rights/texa...
What if you have to pay health insurrance because of the collected data or what if you don't get certain insurrances?
Most People don't have ap roblem that someone gets their medical data but that these information is used to their disadvantage.
I think the more plausible comment is "I've been protected my whole life by health data privacy laws that I have no idea what the other side looks like".
Quite frankly, this is even worse as it can and will override doctors orders and feed into people's delusions as an "expert".
I’ve also lived in places where I don’t have a choice in doctor.
(Life insurance companies are different.)
Edit: Literally on the HN front page right now. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46528353
I think in the US, you get out of the system what you put into it - specific queries and concerns with as much background as you can muster for your doctor. You have to own the initiative to get your reactive medical provider to help.
Using your own AI subscription to analyze your own data seems like immense ROI versus a distant theoretical risk.
It's always been interesting to me how religiously people manage to care about health data privacy, while not caring at all if the NSA can scan all their messages, track their location, etc. The latter is vastly more important to me. (Yes, these are different groups of people, but on a societal/policy level it still feels like we prioritize health privacy oddly more so than other sorts of privacy.)
What's the worst that can happen with OpenAI having your health data? Vs the best case? You all are no different from AI doomers who claim AI will take over the world.. really nonsensical predictions giving undue weight to the worst possible outcomes.
There are no doubt many here that might wish they had as consequence-free a life as this question suggests you have had thus far.
I'm happy for you, truly, but there are entire libraries written in answer to that question.
If you don't mind sharing, what kind of useful information is ChatGPT giving you based off of a photo that your doctor didn't give you? Could you have asked the doctor about the data on the instrument and gotten the same info?
I'm mildly interested in this kind of thing, but I have a severe health anxiety and do not need a walking hypochondria-sycophant in my pocket. My system prompts tell the LLMs not to give me medical advice or indulge in diagnosis roulette.
In another case I uploaded a CSV of CGM data, analyzed it and identified trends (e.g. Saturday morning blood sugar spikes). All in five minutes on my phone.
23andme was massively successful in their mission.
Sidenote: their mission was not about helping you understand your genomic information.
That's the trouble with AI. You can only be impressed if you know a subject well enough to know it's not just bullshitting like usual.
You can have the same problem with doctors who don't give you even 5 minutes of your time and who don't have time to read through all your medical history.
I live in a place where I can get anything related to healthcare and even surgery within the same day at an affordable price, and even here I've wasted days going to various specialists who just tried to give me useless meds.
Imagine if one lives in a place where you need an appointment 3 months in advance, you most certainly will benefit from going there showing your last ChatGPT summary.
There's a reason this data is heavily regulated. It's deeply intimate and gives others enormous leverage over you. This is also why the medical industry can charge premium rates while often providing poor service. Something as simple as knowing whether you need insulin to survive might seem harmless, but it creates an asymmetric power dynamic that can be exploited. And we know these companies will absolutely use this data to extract every possible gain.
Either way, I’m excited for some actual innovation in the personal health field. Apple Health is more about aggregating data than actually producing actionable insights. 23andme was mostly useless.
Today I have a ChatGPT project with my health history as a system prompt and it’s been very helpful. Recently I snapped a photo of an obscure instrument screen after taking a test and was able to get more useful information than what my doctor eventually provided (“nothing to worry about”, etc.) ChatGPT was able to reference papers and do data analysis which was pretty amazing, right from my phone (e.g fitting my data to a model from a paper and spitting out a plot).