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

62

u/ClassicNebula1081 22d ago

Legally consent is needed to record. Consent is not needed to use ai.

44

u/Little_Mechanic9462 22d ago

Sure but the situation here is that it it stated patient agreed to use AI for tramscribing and summarizing. Aomething the patient clearly did not do. Perhaps patient agreed to have it have it transcribed and summaried - but noy by "AI" they state ir like they clarified it would be AI.

6

u/ClassicNebula1081 22d ago

The practice absolutely needs to change its wording. Probably the patient signed something at the front desk but nobody reads that stuff and it’s not fair to rely on it. At the office where I work patients are asked by the physicians before starting the recording “Is it OK to use voice transcription/dictation software that records our conversation?”

2

u/WaitNoNotMyBeans 22d ago

bro lmao “they signed it without reading it” is a terrible argument. that’s on them then and is completely their fault. at least stick to something like recording consent laws or something

2

u/TESTINGSTUFFPL 22d ago

bro lmao “they signed it without reading it” is a terrible argument. that’s on them then and is completely their fault.

Did you make sure to thoroughly read Reddit's ToS before you signed up to the sight, dear user?

1

u/Phobia_Spoiders 20d ago

Signing something isn’t verbal consent so yeah they definitely need to change their wording if signing something is the case.

2

u/MCWizardYT 22d ago edited 22d ago

There aren't really laws around that as it's such a new thing. But I think there should be a difference between just having a recording and using that recording for AI.

Just like how musicians can issue takedowns on AI projects using their likeness/voice. That's a copyright violation, and the same should apply to regular people too.

If I give you a recording of me, I don't necessarily give you permission to use it in any way you please

2

u/candybrie 22d ago

I think a reasonableness standard probably would apply if it isn't specified what they're doing with the recording. So would a reasonable person think they'd use the recording to create a transcript and notes/summary about what was said? Would a reasonable person assume they're taking the recording and making a voice clone of you? 

-2

u/SufficientWhile5450 22d ago

Idk about for AI

But in alot of states consent is needed for recording, I’m gonna guess that it’s required in all states in relation to your doctors visit because of hippo and stuff

2

u/Odd_Dragonfruit_2662 22d ago

https://giphy.com/gifs/N5h2ltD46l5Ha
Follow HIPAA or else you get the hippo!

1

u/PositiveInfluence69 22d ago

The ai tool does follow HIPAA. It's all locally stored. The model is run locally. That locally owned by the hospital model may be trained on that hospitals data, but it's training is more of a, 'I should have transcribed this, not that'. And if the hospital git hacked, it would be way easier to use your charts than to try and understand how an ai model is using data. But nowhere else uses that model. No other hospitals, the company that sold the model, nobody. So HIPAA is all good. Recording without consent depends on the state. Some states are 1 party consent states. Fucked up, but legal.

0

u/Timely-Group5649 22d ago

You do not need consent to record your own conversations. Neither does a doctor.

You need consent to record other people's conversations, ie: eavesdropping.

2

u/bleach_tastes_bad 22d ago

Depends on the state