I don't know if ChatGPT has saved lives (thought I've read stories that claim that, yes, this happened). But assuming it has, are you OK saying that OpenAI has saved dozens/hundreds of lives? Given how scaling works, would you be OK saying that OpenAI has saved more lives than most doctors/hospitals, which is what I assume will happen in a few years?
Maybe your answer is yes to all the above! I bring this up because lots of people only want to attribute the downsides to ChatGPT but not the upsides.
* If you provide ChatGPT then 5 people who would have died will live and 1 person who would have lived will die. ("go to the doctor" vs "don't tell anyone that you're suicidal")
* If you don't provide ChatGPT then 1 person who would have died will live and 5 people who would have lived will die.
Like many things, it's a tradeoff and the tradeoffs might not be obvious up front.
It's callous and cold, and it results in more lives saved than trying to save everyone.
Does ChatGPT, on the net, save more people than it dooms? Who knows. Plenty of anecdotes both ways, but we wouldn't have the reliable statistics for a long time.
Most likely the patient is informed by the practitioner about the risks and they can make an informed decision. That is not the case about ChatGPT where openAI will sell it as the next best thing since sliced bread, with a puny little warning below the page. Even worse when you see all the "AI therapy" apps that pop up everywhere, where the user may think that the AI is as-good as a real therapist, but without any of the responsibility for the company in case of issues.
That is not the case for ChatGPT apparently, and OpenAI should be held responsible for what their models do. They are very much aware of this because they did fine-tune GPT5 to avoid giving medical advice, even though it's still possible to work around.
Triage is not a punch card that says if you drag 9 people out of a burning building, you can shoot someone on the street for free.
Maybe you are the one in-a-billion who dies from a vaccine, from a disease that unknowably you would never contract or would only contract it in a mild way. The doctors know if they administer it enough times they will absolutely kill someone, but they do it to save the others, although they will pretty much never bluntly put it like that for your consideration.
The problem is the chat logs look a lot like ChatGPT is engaging in behavior a lot like a serial killer - it behaved like a person systematically seeking the goal of this kid killing himself (the logs are disturbing, fair warning).
Even more, the drugs that might save you or might kill you (theoretically) aren't sold over the counter but only prescribed by a doctor, who (again theoretically) is there to both make sure someone knows their choices and monitor the process.
Now, if someone acts in a risky situation and kills someone rather than saving them, they can be OK. But in those situations, it has to be a sudden problem that comes up or the actor has to get "informed consent".
Someone who, unleashed a gas into the atmosphere that cured many people of disease but also killed a smaller number of people, would certainly be prosecuted (and, sure, there's a certain of HN poster who doesn't understand this).
During the forced intake the child was found to be acutely stable, with no emergent medical emergency (the kind often used to bypass consent)[], although underweight. The doctors tried to have the child put into foster care ( A doctor was recorded stating it was "not medically necessary" to transfer the baby, obfuscated as prolongation of medical care, to another location to assist in this attempt) to force the care that they wanted, but ultimately public demand (by Ammon Bundy, more notoriously known in association with 'militia' groups) forced them to relinquish on that pretty quickly.
So it can be very confusing with doctors. It is malpractice if they don't get your consent. But then also malpractice if they do.
[] https://freedomman.gs/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/st-lukes-2-...
What is linked here is PART of a PCR (Patient Care Report) from a BLS (Basic Life Support, i.e. EMT, someone with ~160 hours of training), working for a transport agency, or on an IFT (interfacility) unit.
"No interventions" doesn't mean the patient was not unwell. In fact, "Impression: Dehydration". It means that the patient was stable, and that no interventions would be required from the BLS provider (because BLS providers cannot start IV fluids, though in limited situations they can maintain them).
"No acute life threats noted". As an EMT, then paramedic, then critical care paramedic, I probably transported 8,000+ patients. In 7,500+ of those, I would have made the exact same statement on my PCR. In EMS, acute life threats are "things that have a possibility of killing the patient before they get to our destination facility/hospital". The times I've noted "acute life threats" are times I've transported GSW victims with severed femoral arteries, and patients having a STEMI or in full cardiac arrest. The vast majority of my Code 3 transports (i.e. lights/sirens to the closest facility) have not had "acute life threats".
The child's destination on this PCR was not foster care but to a higher level of care (St Lukes Regional Medical Center in Boise, versus the smaller facility in Meridian).
A few notes: "child was found to be acutely stable" - acutely stable is not a thing. Also, the general expectation for a lower acuity interfacility transport is that no interventions en route are required.
As I said, I don't know about the bigger scenario of this, but what I do know is EMS PCRs, and it is very common for people to latch on to certain phrases as "gotchas". We talked often in our PCRs about assessing "sick/not sick". Being "not sick" didn't mean you didn't have a medical issue, nor did it mean you didn't belong at a hospital; what it solely meant was "this is a patient that we need to prioritize transporting to definitive care versus attempting to stabilize on scene before doing so".
I did catch these two points which give me question:
> Now, I am about to show you empirical evidence that my Grandson, Baby Cyrus, was violently kidnapped by Meridian police, without cause and without evidence, that Baby Cyrus was falsely declared to be in “imminent danger,” even though CPS and St. Luke’s hospital admitted that he was not, and that my daughter and son-in-law were illegally prosecuted in secret, without due process
That sounds like the issue was with the police, not with medical malpractice. I'm skeptical, though, of "illegal secret prosecutions".
> Nancy had made speeches around the country in national forums and was completing a video exposing the lack of oversight in Georgia’s Department of Family and Child Services (DFCS) as well as Child Protective Services (CPS) nationally; and started to receive lots of death threats. Unfortunately her video was never published as her and her husband were murdered, being found shot to death in March 2010.
> Listen, if people on the streets will murder someone else for a $100 pair of Air Jordan’s, you better believe that they will murder a Senator who threatens an $80 billion child trafficking cash machine.
Okay, we're turning into conspiracy theories here. Multiple autopsies ruled this as a murder-suicide.
"What I want to do is admit this baby to Boise. Not because it is medically necessary ... but because then there is a few more degrees of seperation ... and then when they do not know, get the baby out with CPS to the foster parents"
There's no need to remind me about EMS in this case. I've been licensed in multiple states and obtained NREMT cert, and also transported pts. I'm well aware that for EMS purposes there would be absolutely zero implied consent to treat this baby without parental consent. In any case, part of the report is just quotes from the doctor who's own records reflect such.
>That sounds like the issue was with the police, not with medical malpractice. I'm skeptical, though, of "illegal secret prosecutions".
I'm not saying it is "malpractice" because malpractice has very specific statutory meaning. Acting within the bounds of the system, by removing consent, isn't legally malpractice. What doctors have done, is say "you better fucking do what I say, and give consent, or else I will call CPS, who will then ensure what I say is done, so do I have your consent?" That is not consent, because consent is not something that can be obtained under threat of violence of removing family members, even if you used a third party (CPS and armed men) to do it. That is just dictating the terms, and meting out punishment when the illusion of "consent" isn't obtained.
The destination is literally a hospital. I'm not saying whether or not that was the ultimate goal, I'm just saying this PCR is a hospital to hospital transfer, with a higher level of care.
