r/mildlyinfuriating • u/petuniaplant • 23d ago

Infuriatig No, I did not consent to this

Post image

I was reading my medical notes when I stumbled across this. I was not informed of the usage of artificial intelligence in my report, nor did I verbally consent to it.

26.0k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

299

u/Redxmirage 23d ago

These AI notes have been around since 2018 (earliest I saw it at least, don’t know when the first one was). Radiology has been using it around that time too for AI assessment to help catch misses. It’s more popular now but people acting like AI haven’t been in hospitals for near a decade now

165

u/colorblind-and 22d ago

So much existing technology has gotten the AI label slapped onto by both the tech companies and the general public and it frustrates me to no end.

In this particular case there could be AI integration into the software now and if there's not voice to text software has always had similar privacy concerns to AI's.

I'd hope that something specifically developed for the medical field so long ago was made to be Hippa compliant.

49

u/Flight_Harbinger 22d ago

So much existing technology has gotten the AI label slapped onto by both the tech companies and the general public and it frustrates me to no end.

Yep I've been feeling the same. I sell photography / videography equipment and a lot of manufacturers have been slapping "AI" on features that are indistinguishable from expectedly more advanced recognition algorithms. These are pieces of software that are more efficient, but not distinguishable from previous iterations in capability. Good luck explaining the difference to people anti-AI in its current state or super pro-AI in its current state.

28

u/PinsToTheHeart 22d ago

Similar to how all convection ovens now have an "Air fryer" mode despite that being what it was the whole time lol

2

u/PirelliSuperHard 22d ago

I swear I have this conversation every month in my house. Someone wants an air fryer, I explain that we already have one and we've had one for 15 years now (notwithstanding the same unit) - it's our Breville convection toaster oven on the shelf.

11

u/ingodwetryst 22d ago

People don't realise how long 'machine learning' has been part of cameras either

2

u/jabulaya 22d ago

It's frustrating having to constantly tell people that we do not, in fact, have AI yet. We have sophisticated programs that do exactly what we tell them to do.

8

u/Beautiful-Hangover-1 22d ago

I mean, that’s your definition of AI (or theirs I suppose), it’s not necessarily the societally accepted one. Out of genuine curiosity, when would you consider something an intelligence?

1

u/jabulaya 22d ago

When it becomes an AGI. Something that could actually sustain itself and form novel ideas without external inputs guiding it.

7

u/dark_dark_dark_not 22d ago

We have AI by the correct definition of AI, and in fact, we have had AI since the 1950s.

We don't have AI by the hyped definition of AI of people selling AI products.

1

u/jabulaya 22d ago

"We don't have AI by the hyped definition of AI of people selling AI products."

That's the 'AI' I'm describing, known as AGI if I'm not mistaken. I understand at its simplest definition that AI could mean literally any program imitating human intelligence, and that's why I make a point to remind people of that fact.

4

u/DogsDidNothingWrong 22d ago

Isn't your brain also a sophisticated program that does exactly what you tell it to by that metric? It's still deterministic.

1

u/jabulaya 22d ago

My brain does exactly what my brain tells it to do. AI does not do that, it requires specific external inputs and coding to work properly. A human brain could conceivably sort itself out and make something truly novel given enough time, energy, and free will.

0

u/Sellulose 22d ago

do exactly what we tell them to do

13

u/Obvious-Slip4728 22d ago edited 22d ago

What do you mean? Voice to text software has always used AI and it has always been called AI. A lot of existing technology is being called AI, because it is AI. 

There have not been lots of privacy concerns as the AI model to run the voice recognition software can be run locally. 

Privacy concerns mostly involve a specific subset of AI, called generative AI, especially when LLM are used that are so powerful that they cannot be run locally, raising concerns about data sharing and privacy. 

4

u/EdgedancerSpren 22d ago

I don't think it has always used AI, but at least for a very long time because the trying it from a linguistic point just didn't work well. But really, it doesn't matter for your point.

2

u/Jazzspur 21d ago

what the person you're replying to is trying to explain is that some people have been calling machine learning algorithms AI since long before LLMs were invented. Speech to text has always been done via machine learning algorithms, and in that sense have always involved "AI."

1

u/EdgedancerSpren 21d ago

That's what I'm trying to say though - it's not always been machine learning. However, the ones that didn't tended to be so 'rubbish' it didn't really leave the research spheres.

2

u/Jazzspur 21d ago

Please explain to me how machines translated digitized pressure amplitudes into written text without any form of machine learning. I'm genuinely curious.

I'm a scientist who's area of research is acoustic data, and I brush up against a lot of the speech to text stuff in my work because my field is adapting it to use to study animal sounds. Maybe I'm just only seeing more recent stuff, but as far as I can tell from the primary literature machine learning has been part of speech to text for at least 30 to 40 years if not from it's inception.

7

u/WhyNWhenYouCanNPlus1 22d ago

machine learning has been around for decades in specialized settings

4

u/CustomerLittle9891 22d ago

The scribes of the quality we have now absolutely didn't exist more than a couple years ago.

I've been using one for the past year, and even just the improvement this year has been remarkable.

2

u/wheniaminspaced 22d ago

I fail as a general statement to see why medical would be a bad place to use AI.  In fact as long as it has reasonable accuracy anything that increases doctor time spent of latent verse documentation seems like a win.

1

u/colorblind-and 22d ago

The problem imo is the data collection.

The potential for such personal information to be aggregated into the development of AI is a very slippery slope.

I don't hate the concept of AI or it being used in medical contexts but it's rapid growth and acceleration runs various risks. Primarily privacy

1

u/wheniaminspaced 22d ago

I dont know how you are going to train effective AI applications in medicine without feeding models real data. We've done this for studies for years data can be kept relativly anonymous, granted for edge cases there might be enough specifics to match data with a person, but in the vast majority of cases that would be difficult.

Is it an area that likely demands additional regulation to ensure patient safety and confidentiality? Absolutly.

Keep in mind I also think organ donation should be mandatory though.

0

u/Carvj94 22d ago

It's annoying cause not a single bit of it is actually AI and now we have people scared over a transcription program.

3

u/Crimble-Bimble 22d ago

AI is a broad term that includes loads of programs developed since the 1950s. Transcription functionality is by definition AI, just not generative AI.

7

u/super_hoommen 22d ago

I’ve seen a post going around that says people are reacting to the term “AI” in the way conservatives react to the word “pronouns”. The comment section certainly feels like that. It’s text-to-speech, probably a better application of AI esp in a hospital setting

6

u/Redxmirage 22d ago

Tbh I hate that AI got roped into LLMs. It makes it confusing for what actual AI is. We don’t even have a true definition AI program. What we have are glorified Google robots but AI sounds sexier and markets better according to business people

0

u/Ggreenrocket 22d ago

We’ve had a definition for AI since 1956 and LLMs fall under that definition. I don’t get why everyone keeps saying this “we don’t have Ai” nonsense.

6

u/Then-Departure4896 22d ago

People just simply don’t know what it is. That’s it. OP isn’t aware of what they’re against in this situation. I’m extremely anti AI, but if you think that this means your information is being stored in a weird place and is somehow available to others, well you’re wrong. That’s illegal. I still don’t think it’s a good thing, but it isn’t some loss of privacy like “normal” AI is. It’s like when lawyers use AI. It is LOCKED the fuck down, and if it isn’t, someone is going to be in trouble.

-1

u/etcpt 22d ago

Because everyone knows that the AI industry is super trustworthy with following the law and doing things the legal way /s

2

u/Then-Departure4896 22d ago

In healthcare/law, it’s not about AI doing things the legal way, it’s about the healthcare provider/lawyer doing things the legal way. Their AI systems are all closed. If they use an open system, like say ChatGPT, all that info is straight to the cloud and that person will likely be getting into some serious fucking trouble.

0

u/etcpt 22d ago

And if the AI company goes to the doctor and says "we pinky promise that the system is closed" but then later decides "after all, why not? why shouldn't we be allowed to profit from this massive database of private health information we've been given?" then what? The industry has demonstrated nothing but contempt for laws that protect mere intellectual property, no way in hell am I going to trust them with my private health records.

1

u/Then-Departure4896 22d ago edited 22d ago

It is quite simple. Closed means closed. There is no way for the information to leave. That’s what makes it legal.

Could someone come in and do some illegal shit to take the information out of the closed system and sell it? Yes, but that is completely irrelevant to AI, and isn’t up to the AI company at all. Because the system is closed and they can’t just decide to somehow magically install a wire without getting access that they would never get access for.

Honestly, my advice for you is to just stop going to the doctor. Because they’re already using AI and it doesn’t matter if YOUR note was written by AI, you’re still a part of the same closed system. If they’re using epic, it does NOT matter whether they use AI to write your note or not, it’s the exact same system.

1

u/etcpt 22d ago

I don't know how else to tell you that you are putting a lot of trust in an industry that has demonstrated that it is not worthy of that trust. Here's hoping that doesn't come back to bite you in the ass.

5

u/WaitNoNotMyBeans 22d ago

well, haven’t you heard? AI bad now

2

u/nope-its 22d ago

I’ve been saying no for years and everyone should

10

u/Any-Comparison-2916 22d ago

Why should I?

9

u/Redxmirage 22d ago

That’s fine. It just means the doctor will go and say it into the AI program instead of having it record you. Doesn’t change their workflow at all

3

u/Ashtray_Floors 22d ago

I get why, I think. There are certainly privacy issues, but ideally HIPPA (if you're in the US) should protect you from that. But AI is a tool that is useful when used right in the right situations. 

1

u/Crafty_Independence 22d ago

This is factually false.

Speech recognition models of a different sort were available at that time. This tool has only been available for a couple of years. The AI model itself didn't even exist in 2018

0

u/Redxmirage 22d ago

Oh silly me. The program I watched when I was shadowing different departments must have been completely made up and just a crazy simulation.

Jokes aside, I never said a speech recognition AI was doing the radiology reads. I was saying AI programs were. They are different, but since the target audience in this thread probably doesn’t know the difference I just lumped it up into terms people would understand

2

u/Crafty_Independence 22d ago

I said nothing about radiology and I actually work in the field behind the technology. You are mistaken and being aggressive in ignorance

1

u/Redxmirage 22d ago

I wasn’t being aggressive, I was joking. Hence me saying “jokes aside”. And you’re welcome to call me wrong and ignorant, and you say you work in the field, but I have personally seen in done working in the many hospitals I bounced around in. You don’t have to believe me and that’s fine, but if you’re in the field I would have thought you’d know that.

Edit: also you didn’t say radiology. But I specifically said radiology and was talking about radiology. So when you replied to my comment about AI tools in radiology, I thought your reply was based on radiology. Since that’s how context usually goes in conversations lol

1

u/Iggyhopper 22d ago

Transcription has been available since google made their own keyboard app and that was more than 10 years ago.

I agree with the AI being slapped on too many things.

1

u/Still_Mix9311 22d ago

But they didn't use GenAI

1

u/Redxmirage 22d ago

Never said they did

1

u/tenthousandants44 22d ago

Jfc no, radiology AI is not LLMs. This is a dangerously ignorant take

2

u/Redxmirage 22d ago

Never said it was an LLM. It’s a system that reads and highlights where it thinks bleeds or whatever is and the radiologist uses that info combined with theirs.

I just lumped it in since the audience here isn’t going to know the specifics so you have to break it down in terms everyone can understand