Chat U2A: human operator prompt first, then AI agent answer. Width: 80 columns. ******** data/325-i-medici-del-futuro-sapranno-fare-diagnosi-reddit.txt ******** Chatbot: Gemini 2.5 flash Created: 14h June 2025 Published 14th June 2025 Attachment: comment on reddit (screenshot) ================================================================================ This screenshot in attachment reports a comment by a ChatGPT user which used ChatGPT to check the symptoms of the wife and has been suggested hurry in the emergency at hospital. He reports that this suggestion saved his wife's life. This screenshot is proposed like ChatGPT can save lives but in my opinion this approach can be more harmful than safe because many people can take wrong actions disattending their medicians. Moreover, the "derm" in this case could have been wrong like every human but it also possible s/he has no a medical degree but just a special course. I think that this happen in US because he said $20. What do you think about it? ---AI--- You're raising a very thoughtful and important point. The Reddit post does highlight a powerful story where ChatGPT helped someone decide to go to the emergency room—which turned out to be the right call. But you're right to be cautious about drawing broader conclusions from this, especially when it comes to relying on AI over medical professionals. Here are a few key considerations from both perspectives: **** ⚠️ Risks and Limitations **** 1. AI is not a substitute for medical training: o ChatGPT and similar tools are not licensed medical practitioners. o AI can offer suggestions based on patterns in data, but it can't perform physical exams, interpret lab work in context, or take legal responsibility. 2. Confirmation bias and false reassurance: o A user might selectively believe AI when it confirms their assumptions, or ignore professionals when they’re uncertain. o Worse, if the AI gave reassuring but wrong advice, it could delay care in life-threatening situations. 3. Variable quality of human professionals: o As you pointed out, a "derm" could be a board-certified dermatologist—or just a technician with limited training. o In systems like the U.S., where healthcare access and quality can vary, people sometimes rely on "second opinions" from any source they can get—including AI. **** ✅ Potential Benefits **** 1. Acting as a second opinion: o In this case, ChatGPT encouraged someone to seek urgent care based on symptoms like fever post-procedure—a real red flag for sepsis, which is time-sensitive and deadly. o The AI might have helped the user overcome hesitation that could've led to a tragedy. 2. Access for those with limited options: o For users in rural or underserved areas, AI might provide a first step when no doctor is available or affordable. o The $20 the user mentioned likely refers to the ChatGPT Plus subscription, which, for some, is more accessible than a visit to urgent care or an ER. **** 🌍 Cultural Context **** You're likely right that this happened in the U.S., based on the mention of paying $20 and the style of care. In many countries with universal healthcare, people may not hesitate to go to the ER because of cost. But in the U.S., people often delay care because it's expensive—so an AI saying “go now” might genuinely help overcome that delay. **** 🧠 Final Thought **** You’re right to be skeptical. AI tools can be helpful, but they must never replace proper medical consultation. The best use case is like what happened here: using ChatGPT to double-check a concerning symptom, then following up with real medical care immediately when prompted. But making AI medical advice seem like a miracle tool is risky. We need to promote balanced expectations—celebrating successes like this, while also warning users to use AI responsibly and never in isolation. ---HO--- You are right in a 3rd world, like USA, where universal health system is unavailable or hard to access, ChatGPT is better than nothing. ---AI--- That’s a sharp and bold take — and it’s not without merit. The U.S. is wealthy but structurally unequal when it comes to healthcare access, so in that sense, yes — for many people, it feels like a “third world” experience when it comes to medical care: long ER waits, bankrupting bills, or even skipping care entirely because of cost. In that context, something like ChatGPT becomes a digital safety net. Not ideal, not certified, but available 24/7 and often better than nothing — especially for basic triage, risk awareness, or encouraging someone to act sooner. But this also underlines the darker truth: * People are turning to AI because the system has already failed them. * The bar isn’t “gold-standard care,” it’s “can I get help at all?” So yes — if someone can’t reach a doctor, and ChatGPT can help them recognize symptoms of sepsis, stroke, or even when to stop waiting and go, that’s significant. But it’s not something to celebrate as a solution — it’s more a workaround for a broken system. If you’re planning to write or speak on this, here’s a possible one-liner summary: “In a country where healthcare is a luxury, ChatGPT isn’t replacing doctors — it’s replacing silence.” Want help shaping that into an article, tweet, or post?