Maybe if chatgpt existed back then you'd have had your carcinoma extracted along with 10 other benign anomalies.

Automation doesn't make up for carelessness.

Skin cancer is easily treated with excisions if it’s caught early. Better to have ten small false positives than a single miss.

	▲	gchamonlive 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Even if addressing each false positive would carrying low but real risk of death or complications?

▲

teiferer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not sure why this is getting downvoted. In its specific case that's quite obviously not a good example because removing benign spots isn't harmful, but overlooking malignant ones is, so there is no downside.

But if we think a little further and generalize then there is great risk (and by extension, harm) to delegate diagnosis and treatment (of health issues in general, including potentially or supposedly fatal ones) to ChatGPT and similar tech. That we'd end up with a net positive is far from obvious.

	▲	red75prime an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Obviously, error rate of ChatGPT should be measured by comparing to human diagnoses and when it plateaus, we should investigate a possibility that the number is driven mostly by human errors.
	▲	gchamonlive 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I still maintain my point that it isn't harmless to blindly address benign anomalies. Every medical procedure carries risk.