> A close relative is a practicing surgeon and a professor in his field. He watches youtube videos of surgeries practically every day.

A professor in the field can probably go "ok this video is bullshit" a couple minutes in if it's wrong. They can identify a bad surgeon, a dangerous technique, or an edge case that may not be covered.

You and I cannot. Basically, the same problem the general public has with phishing, but even more devastating potential consequences.

▲

raincole 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The same can be said for average "medical sites" the Google search gives you anyway.

	▲	ceejayoz 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's a lot easier for me to assess the Mayo Clinic's website being legitimate than an individual YouTuber's channel.
	▲	fc417fc802 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I don't think anyone is talking about "medical sites" but rather medical sites. Indeed "medical sites" are no better than unvetted youtube videos created by "experts". That said, if (hypothetically) gemini were citing only videos posted by professional physicians or perhaps videos uploaded to the channel of a medical school that would be fine. The present situation is similar to an LLM generating lots of citations to vixra.

▲

laborcontract 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Your comment doesn't address my point. The same criticism applies to any medium.

	▲	ceejayoz 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The point is you can't say "an expert finds x useful in their field y" and expect it to always mean "any random idiot will find x useful in field y".