I think the post conflates two issues:

1. AI-generated charting. 2. The existence of a reliable record of the visit.

I am skeptical of the first in some cases (i.e. bias), but strongly in favor of the second.

My father is 80 and has Parkinson’s. He routinely leaves appointments unsure of what the doctor said, what changed, or what he is supposed to do next. Even when I attend with him, we sometimes disagree afterward about what exactly was recommended.

This happens with pediatric appointments too. My wife and I occasionally remember instructions differently: medication timing, symptoms to watch for, when to call back, whether something was “normal” or needed follow-up.

That is a care quality problem, not just a convenience problem.

The risks are real: privacy, consent, retention, training use, liability, and automation bias. But those argue for strict controls, not for a blanket refusal. Make it opt-in, give the patient access, prohibit training without explicit consent, keep retention short, and require clear auditability.

I do not want opaque AI quietly rewriting the medical record. But I also do not think “everyone relies on memory after a stressful 12-minute appointment” is some gold standard we should preserve.

Have you tried recording the interactions with doctors for your own benefit?