Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
Dr. Dominic Ng
@DrDominicNg
·
10d
3. The physician comparison was rigged
Docs were banned from:
❌ Googling symptoms
❌ Consulting colleagues
❌ Using UpToDate/medical databases
❌ Calling specialists

That's not how we practice!!
It's like testing a chef who can't use recipes or taste their food.
7/1/2025, 4:33:30 AM
X
In reply to:
A. M. Pines
@AM_Pines
·
10d
@GaryMarcus Doctors also don’t use Google either (despite what people say) they use specialized medical databases and sites like, UpToDate, MaruMed, Medscape, MURU, Pedistat and some cost $$$$$. But they aren’t using Google and they use these thoroughly systems vetted for latest info.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
10d
What a sham this Microsoft AI study was.

Read below for the full report, but, spoiler alert, doctors weren’t allowed to do use Google, whereas the AI trained on the whole internet and (most likely) a bunch of medical textbooks..

Open Book for me, not for thee.
Dr. Dominic Ng
@DrDominicNg
·
10d
Microsoft claims their new AI framework diagnoses 4x better than doctors.

I'm a medical doctor and I actually read the paper. Here's my perspective on why this is both impressive AND misleading ... 🧵

The statement is part of a broader discussion on the validity and methodology of a Microsoft AI study comparing AI diagnostic capabilities to those of human doctors. The conversation critiques the study's design, particularly the restrictions placed on doctors, which may not reflect real-world medical practice. The tone is critical and aims to highlight potential biases and limitations in the study.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to do no harm by focusing on the critique of a study rather than individuals. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It respects the privacy and dignity of others by not engaging in personal attacks or revealing private information. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism by pointing out specific methodological flaws in the study, promoting a more informed dialogue. [+2]