Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
7/1/2025, 10:12:21 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
11d
@EricTopol @HarshaNori @chrisck @Dominic1King @mustafasuleyman @erichorvitz Unless I have misunderstood, @EricTopol, this was a completely unfair test.

In particular, the test seems to have been open book for machines (training in the web UpToDate etc) but not humans:
Dr. Dominic Ng
@DrDominicNg
·
12d
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.
Eric Topol
@EricTopol
·
13d
Agentic A.I. vs experienced physicians for diagnosis of > 300 complex diagnostic cases:
4-fold higher accuracy and 20% lower cost https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.22405
@HarshaNori @chrisck @Dominic1King @mustafasuleyman @erichorvitz

The statement is part of a public discourse on the evaluation of AI in medical diagnostics. It critiques the fairness of a test comparing AI to human physicians, suggesting that the conditions were biased against humans. This engages with issues of technology in healthcare, fairness in testing, and the implications of AI on medical practice.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement raises concerns about fairness, which can be seen as striving to do no harm by advocating for equitable testing conditions. [+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 dignity of physicians by highlighting the unrealistic constraints placed on them during the test. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by questioning the methodology and encouraging a more balanced evaluation of AI capabilities. [+1]
  4. 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.
    It engages in constructive criticism by addressing specific issues with the test without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]