This is the best summary I could come up with:

According to the study, which was published in the journal JAMA Oncology and initially reported by Bloomberg – when asked to generate treatment plans for a variety of cancer cases, one-third of the large language model's responses contained incorrect information.

The chatbot sparked a rush to invest in AI companies and an intense debate over the long-term impact of artificial intelligence; Goldman Sachs research found it could affect 300 million jobs globally.

Famously, Google's ChatGPT rival Bard wiped $120 billion off the company's stock value when it gave an inaccurate answer to a question about the James Webb space telescope.

Earlier this month, a major study found that using AI to screen for breast cancer was safe, and suggested it could almost halve the workload of radiologists.

A computer scientist at Harvard recently found that GPT-4, the latest version of the model, could pass the US medical licensing exam with flying colors – and suggested it had better clinical judgment than some doctors.

The JAMA study found that 12.5% of ChatGPT's responses were "hallucinated," and that the chatbot was most likely to present incorrect information when asked about localized treatment for advanced diseases or immunotherapy.

The original article contains 523 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 63%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

So does my dog, this isn't news.

Clickbait written by an idiot who doesn't understand technology. I guess they give out journalism degrees to anyone who can write a top 10 buzzfeed article.

Wht would you even consider using chatGPT for this?

It speeds things up for people who know what they're talking about. The doctor asking for the plan could probably argue a few of the errors and GPT will say "oh you're right, I'll change that to something better" and then it's good to go.

Yes you can't just rely on it to be right all the time, but you can often use it to find the right answer with a small conversation, which would be quicker than just doing it alone.

I recently won a client with GPTs help in my industry.

I personally think I'm very knowledgeable in what I do, but to save time I asked what I should be looking out for, and it gave me a long list of areas to consider in a proposal. That list alone was a great starting block to get going. Some of the list wasn't relevant to me or the client, so had to be ignored, but the majority of it was solid, and started me out an hour ahead, essentially tackling the planning stage for me.

To someone outside of my industry, if they used that list verbatim, they would have brought up a lot of irrelevant information and covered topics that would make no sense.

I feel it's a tool or partner rather than a replacement for experts. It helps me get to where I need to go quicker, and it's fantastic at brainstorming ideas or potential issues in plans. It takes some of the pressure off as I get things done.

😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱 /j

I thought it released in 2021. Maybe it was on the cusp. I was basically using it to find what I couldn't seem to find in the docs. Its definitely replaced my rubber ducky, but I still have to double check it after my Unity experience.

No one is building document traversal LLM in the healthcare space with off the shelf tools