I’m a human being and I’m pretty sure I am already not allowed to give legal or medical advice to anybody in new york or any other state.
Chat bots should never give medical advice. Chat bots dispense basic, standalone factoids, like “aspirin is a pain reliever.” But they don’t know or care about dosages, comorbid conditions or whether or not you live or die, so they won’t ask follow up questions.
In the US especially, medical professionals are overworked and simply don’t have the time and energy properly diagnose. If you have a more complex, chronic issue, there’s a good chance you’ll be waiting months at a time to see various specialists who are only going to spend about 10 distracted minutes thinking about your case and might not even have any useful insights, or they might misdiagnose you and make your condition worse. You basically have to do your own research and show them studies. If you’re a person of color or a woman, etc., there’s a good chance you won’t even be taken seriously. In an ideal world, it would work like it does on TV, but in the real world, it’s all about maximizing profits and the patients be damned. Sure, LLMs are unreliable, but they do at least provide ideas to research.
That’s not why people are using ChatBots, they are using Chatbots because they can’t afford healthcare.
and before we get out the tiny violins for MDs, they gatekeep the system to keep their salaries high.
Bad news folks, MDs are using ChapGPT on the sly.
they are using Chatbots because they can’t afford healthcare
Even if they do spend their limited resources on healthcare, there’s a good chance it’s going to be a waste of money.
before we get out the tiny violins for MDs
A lot of MDs are pretty useless in the first place, and that’s a big part of the problem. Maximizing the patient load doesn’t help anything. Just because someone can memorize and regurgitate information well, that doesn’t mean they’re going to be effective at their job. It’s often necessary to shop around to find someone who doesn’t suck, which is especially difficult for anyone who can’t afford it.
- Make laws against chatbots.
- Demand proof you are not a chatbot.
- Surveillance capitalism.
The real target here is population control.
The lawmakers, which take billionaire money by the ton, who HAVE NEVER given a shit, suddenly, NOW, they want to protect the vulnerable. Abso fucking lutely laughable on its face.
Agreed. It’s never about protection, just covert exploitation
If implemented, that would just ban chatbots that use large language models. It’s not a terrible idea.
What would actually happen is that so-called AI chatbot systems would try to detect if someone is from New York and then try to exclude them from receiving medical or legal advice, fail, and then get sued and then pay a small fine, over and over again forever.
This is a really bad idea.
First because healthcare is clearly being gatekept from people.
Second, because even if you go to a healthcare professional nowadays, there is no guarantee that that person is not a fucking idiot that doesn’t believe in vaccines. I can’t believe I have to actually ask people before they touch me if they believe in vaccines or not and then tell them to not come back into my room if they answer that they don’t believe in science. But that has happened and it has happened to the people I’ve taken care of and because of this now healthcare can’t be trusted.
The LLM is not any worse than that. In fact, I would say that it’s already too cautious. No way the model is ever going to tell me vaccines are bad. It’s not going to tell me to take a poison to clear Covid. It’s not going to tell me to drink bleach like the president did. It’s literally not any worse than the bullshit we are dealing with all day every fucking day.
And I’m getting to the point that if you’re a full grown human fucking being and you’re going to believe something if it tells you to drink fucking bleach or swallow a fucking lightbulb then that’s nature saying something about you.
Naw, completely disagree. If you had a calculator you knew was defective you would ban doctors and lawyers from using it.
You also seem to think that LLM is going to be inherently more accurate than a expert human. We can see with GrokAI how easy it is to manipulate an AI into saying racist white nationalist garbage. So we are not just trusting the technology but also a layer of unpredictable corporate meddling.
Why does the LLM recommend this drug but not the other one? We quickly see how a corporation could favor a certain medication due to behind the scene deals or even push a medication.
You can’t trust a black box you are not allowed to look into. Trust in a LLM at this point is pure folly.
Funny thing is LLMs are bad as calculators too, since I’ve seen it get simple multiplication wrong.
It’s capable of generating content, but unable to verify or know itself if it is correct. But, lot of people don’t realize that because the less they know about a subject matter the smarter it will seem to them not knowing its well…a language model. As in just outputting what can be complete gibberish.
Some of the SOTA models like gemini 3 pro are getting quite good at ballpark/estimations. I have fed it multiple complex formulas from my studies and some values. The end result is often quite close and similar in accuracy how I would do an estimation myself. (It is usually more accurate then my own ones.)
Now I don’t argue there is any consciousness or magic going on. But I think the generalization that is going on is quite something! I have trained ai models for various robot control and computer vision tasks. Compared to older machine learning approaches transformers are very impressive, computationally accessible and easy to use. (In my limited experience)
I find it okay for writing programs since you can verify it to see if the output is correct.
But, actual analysis not so much, since when verifying what comes out that its not completely reliable even for things it should be like numbers. Now numbers might be close, but still off
Abstract stuff might be fine. But, its still not something to entirely trust on analysis because of errors. There’s a lot of double checking that needs to be going on.
100% fact.
Laws like this are great for these companies. This is how they will justify removing access to useful information and putting it behind paywalls. But oh your need a prescription so now the insurance companies are involved (spoiler: they already are) and so you don’t even have access to pay out the nose for medical information.
Then when Google search has been completely replaced with AI, you won’t even be able to search for medical information.
Healthcare companies aren’t about to provide anything for free.
Most of the medical information coming up these days is garbage and you should be going to a known, reputable site and searching their database. LLMs have been trained on absolute garbage. There is nothing of value being kept from anyone here.
LLMs and chatbots should not be giving medical advice. You are afraid of the private healthcare system, not the lack of access to the most janky bandaid fix for its failures.
Neither should Wikipedia or Google. So I guess by your logic nobody should search or learn about medical conditions on a computer.
I guess by your logic nobody should search or learn about medical conditions on a computer.
How else would we know the TRUTH about 5G vaccines and invermectin? Or the cures of Apple Cider vinegar?
You know damn well there’s an important difference related to the confidence of a bot that has been a key problem since this whole thing started.
The line between medical advice and personal research is pretty freaking gray, so banning medical advice. Does that also ban talking to llms about anything that is medical adjacent?
Does medical adjacent mean personal disabilities? Drug related interests? Pet health? Stretches? Pain support?
Anything that falls under “Health, Wellness, and Fitness”?
…etc
It’s a slippery slope and we don’t need to be sliding down it
People are so vicious over this tech they would rather have disabled poor people with cancer suffer and die under inadequate care than do anything about the inadequate care. Ban the tech, but let this all go on.
If you are perfectly able and well, you can ignore all advice that isn’t perfect.
The perspective they seem to lack is frightening. The empathy they refuse to engage is massive. This is able-ism.
Tech companies are bad, but use of tech will cure and ease cancer, HIV, and chronic disease. Bring on the downvotes.
I think you may be falling into a false dichotomy. Not only is the choice being presented a bad one, it ignores real solutions to the root problem, leaving us to argue over the crappy “band-aid” solution to it.
I believe that people needing health care should have no reason to ask a chat bot about their symptoms because they can ask a helpful doctor instead. The fact that they can’t do that is the problem, not their access or lack of it to the chat bot.
“Would rather have disabled people with cancer suffer and die…”
My guy, that’s not a lack of LLM access, it’s a completely fucked US healthcare system that forces people onto the internet because they can’t get what they need from the state, you goofy-ass weirdo.
“Would rather have disabled people with cancer suffer and die…”
Well yes of course but also restricting access to information machines doesn’t exactly help much either.
I hate to break it to you but… they’re not really “information machines”. Google search is a better information machine.
Do hallucinating LLMs, that have done such things as convince a child to commit suicide before, really count as “information machines”? The Mayo clinic website might take a single whole other braincell to read through but at least it’ll be written properly.
I mean, the fact that you consider these programs to have enough credibility to be called “information machines” is exactly why they’re so potentially dangerous.
Hell yeah, let’s hold them accountable for disinformation. They’ll be gone completely in a matter of months.
Want to get rid of that responsibility? Direct the user to the source. Oh wait, that’s just a search engine.
It’s a bit different, because a search engine can give you 0 results. An AI is trained on getting the most correct answers so it always guesses, it’s the best way to score on an evaluation
Except for refusals, but that’s a kind of answer as well.
I think a better solution is to ban techbros from giving serious economic or cultural advice and take computers away from business majors.
Please don’t take them entirely away. Maybe just internet access? 30ish years had to do accounting by hand. In those green ledgers. It took approximately twelve times longer to do it by hand than to do it with a computer. And it made me shrimp like 5 times worse. I needed an architect’s table what angled the top of it in order to work properly but I could neither get one supplied by the employer nor afford to give one to the employer.
Not all technology is bad
found the business major!
what about a typewriter?
um, i had one. still have it in a case in the garage, next to my 1950s adding machine that sat in the corner of my cube making me look like a Real Numbers Person Tee Emm.
if i’d known my hood was going to be brown i might have reconsidered.
Oddly specific gripe, I’ll allow it.
thank you i have others in jars in the back
I don’t get how some of these tech company CEOs who came up as engineers can be pushing this bullshit. I get once the company got big they started hiring business bros. But some big companies still have CEOs that were once engineers. You’d think they would know better.
Would be nice if regular legal and health advice was in any way affordable though
I don’t see how you police/enforce this. The technology is out of the bag, people will find ways to access. Do we need age/location verification for this now too? What if I’m running a local agent? I don’t agree with this.
The law would allow you to sue whoever is running the chatbot. If you run your own LLM locally and take bad advice from it, then it’s your own fault.
Walk me through how a company based and operating not in new york would be subject to any actions from this lawsuit.
I do agree it’s limited to a small scope of New York-based smaller LLMs, but if you read the news you know why exactly this bill occured - just now Mamdani gave up on a useless chatbot made with local budget by his predecessor Adams: https://www.thecity.nyc/2026/01/30/mamdani-unusable-ai-chatbot-budget/ It was indeed giving inaccurate legal recomendations on city’s website. I think the better result that can happen to that bill is it becoming a trend across cities and states as, I suspect, New York administration wasn’t the only one falling for this scam.
So who gets sued. The guy who put the chat bot on the server and is running it or the chatbot software developer themselves?
Or both?
The guy who put the chat bot on the server, and then that guy may sue the other one if applicable.
You bring a regulation - can you really enforce it?
I may have become too cynical but, as is often the case when you dig deeper, this sounds like the result of lobbyists trying to protect licensing rather than people.
We can be dumb, but we’ve been doing web searches for legal and medical advice for ages because it is too damned expensive and time consuming to go to professionals for every little thing. Not to mention, doctors have so little time for you that it is hard to get them to listen to the whole story to make connections between symptoms.
The LLMs already tell you that they aren’t licensed professionals and, for many, provide citations for their sources (miles better than your typical health website).
As a personal anecdote, my son was having stomach pain but was planning to tough it out. He checked with ChatGPT and it recommended he go to the ER. He did, and if he hadn’t, he would likely be dead now. He spent 3 days in the hospital having his bowels unobstructed through a tube in his nose.
There is value in people having that kind of information at their fingertips.
Regulation is absolutely needed, but I would rather they focus on protecting us from AI being used for military purposes, mass surveillance, etc. rather than protecting citizens from ourselves.
Are you in the US? My take away here is American healthcare is bad but we’re treating the symptom not the disease.
Yeah, I’m in the US and I agree. Though it is going to take some serious change to treat the problem. In the meantime, this is at least a stopgap solution for people who don’t have a lot of options.
Wait, he thought he could sit that pain through at home? Your son is tough as nails. Give him a hug for me and everyone else who’s had that four day n-g tube delight.
Yeah, he is pretty tough. I wish I could hug him, he is about a 10 hour drive from me. That tube was nightmarish from what he’s told me.
if i were his parent, i would be giving him gentle reminders to drink more water. after teasing him for eating way too much corn or broccoli or whatever bastard fiber caused his obstruction (assuming he’s in a mental place he can handle the teasing)
He’s in his 20s so he is only slightly more likely to take my advice than he was as a teenager 😆
if he’s more likely to take the advice, tell him it came from someone who has had hundreds of bowel obstructions.
This reads as a way to protect white collar industries from the effects of AI without addressing the root problem–that AI does not actually think, and that it is little more than a meat grinder full of scraped data.
It does think, just not very logically.
To put it another way, it’s like we figured out how to give machines an intuition via Machine Learning. So you’ve got a machine with an intuition trained on all written text that is not literal gibberish, but by default all they know how to do is shoot from the hip with their intuition, and the only feedback they get for whether they said the right thing is whether the human they’re chatting with approves of what they say.
It’s a bullshitter to the extreme because that was how we built the incentive structure. And now they use the bullshitters to train better bullshitters.
Is it any surprise that business executives think that these are the ultimate in intelligence? All they do is bullshit.
In other words, Artificial Stupidity. Why is it CALLED intelligent?
Why is it CALLED intelligent?
Because it is “intelligent” by definition. You’re conflating the word with “highly intelligent” or just “smart”.
Dogs are “intelligent” but can’t they write code, but we sometimes refer to dogs as “smart”.
A flatworm has intelligence but no one would call it smart.
Just have them add a disclaimer or have the hosts be liable for what their chatbots say, stop adding bureaucracy just asking to get selective prosecuted and abused.
Name checks out.
Section 230 of the dmca is designed to allow platforms to exist because people can say whatever the fuck they want. But nobody should make a machine that says things they can’t control, and if you do you need to be disciplined for such irresponsibility.
