There’s no real smoking gun here showing what they are taking, storing, and using (or how they’re using it). But I do agree that nobody should dive in to this until that’s better understood as it is likely they are not following HIPAA and will not respect your privacy. Definitely not when there’s money on the table. Given their track record the concern is warranted.
Google did that, Facebook did that and every other company who boasted their user-base numbers did that. They sold user attention and harvested user data. Nothing new here.
ChatGPT mostly refuses to talk health issues , while i have found Gemini is reasonably cooperative when asking for things like symptoms and treatments .
This makes me not wanting to try out their new offering.
My dad used ChatGPT to guide him through testing, diagnosis, preparation, and recovery from a quadruple bypass. He never mentioned it refusing to talk about anything, just about how indispensable it was in the process and saved him months of time over skipping it and relying on the medical system alone, without help.
For example, it told him to go out and get a test on his own before meeting with a certain specialist, so the specialist didn’t order it during the first meeting and then need to wait for a follow up after reviewing it. He did this, gave the results to ChatGPT, which sounded the alarm. He sent a message with the results to his doctor and his appointment with the specialist was moved up to the same week, instead of 3 months out.
The LLM still provide value. They are much quicker than seeing a doctor, and with Deep Research for ChatGPT and whatever Gemini google search is calling it now you can actually get to see the sources from the information that it is looking at.
Parsing 100 different scientific articles or even google search results is not going to be possible before I get bored and move on. This is the value of LLM.
Even if the LLM data is used in training or sold off one way to protect oneself, is to add in knowingly incorrect data to the chat. You know it is incorrect, the LLM will believe it. Then the narrative is substantially changed.
Or wait like 6mo and the opensource Chinese models [Kimi/Qwen/Friends] will have caught up to Claude and Gemini IMO. Then just run these models quantized locally on Apple Silicon or GPU.
I find it ironic that the article is warning against AI use while it uses an AI-made cover image. Surely they find the same fault with copyright issues and AI art? Right?
ChatGPT has made a material difference in my ability to understand health problems, test results, and to communicate with doctors effectively. My wife and I were talking last night about how helpful it was in 2025. I hope that it continues to be good at this.
I want regulators to keep an eye on this and make smart laws. I don't want it to go away, as its value is massive in my life.
(One example, if you are curious: I've been doing rehab for a back injury for about 10 years. I worked with a certified trainer/rehab professional for many years and built a program to keep me as pain-free as possible. I rebuilt the entire thing with ChatGPT/Gemini about 6 weeks ago, and I've had less pain than at any other point in my life. I spent at least 12 hours working with AI to test and research every exercise, and I've got some knowledge to help guide me, but I was amazed by how far it has come in 12 months. I ran the results by a trainer to double-check it was well thought out.)
And if it didn't work out and made you worse or, god forbid, the advice caused you to get seriously injured, then what? ChatGPT won't take any responsibility.
I have so many issues with our current health system but an alternative is not an unreliable search tool that takes no responsibility for the information it provides.
If you'd been doing the rehab for 10 years, what did you need exactly? It seems like you should have had a decade to ask whatever questions you wanted.
I've had a similar positive experience and I'm really surprised at the cynicism here. You have a system that is good at reading tons of literature and synthesizing it, which then applies basic logic. What exactly do the cynics think that doctors do?
I don't use LLMs as the final say, but I do find them pretty useful as a positive filter / quick gut check.
Sounds like you’re a good little product… abundant potential for shareholder value to be extracted from you and others like you. A trip to the library or a consult with a professional would’ve given you the same or better results.
LLMs for medical info are good, but they're easily abuseable. I've got a friend who is an anxious mom. They use gpt/Gemini to "confirm" all of their suspicions and justify far more doctor/medical visits than is at all reasonable, while also getting access to more recurring antibiotics than is reasonable. LLMs are basically giving them the gun powder to waste the doctor's time and slam an already stressed medical system when all their kids need most of the time is some rest and soup.
This sounds like it will be one of those products which starts out as an optional service, but eventually becomes required to use if you want to participate in the overall healthcare system.
Not mentioned in the article, but one interesting area where OpenAI could play is in participant identification and recruitment for clinical trials. In fact, ChatGPT could also help operate the clinical trials which is a highly paperwork intensive business, and therefore something that AI could add value to.
Ultimately pharmaceutical companies pay up to $100,000 per participant to hospital networks these charges must be itemized as expenses from the hospital on the most part (bounties are illegal usually.) open AI would provide a cheap way in for pharmaceutical companies to identify participants given that OpenAI has an incredible perspective into the physical and psychological state of their users. Imagine how much more is shared with OpenAI compared to a clinical trial coordinator at a hospital when a psychiatric drug is being tested.
This would also give OpenAI leverage in partnering with pharmaceutical companies. OpenAI executives have stated this is a goal, but otherwise they’ve made little progress on it.
It’s wild to imagine - someone with borderline personality disorder having delusional conversations with an AI chat Bot for six months, receiving an offer to participate in a clinical trial, and then having their subsequent AI conversations used as evidence to analyze the efficacy of the drug. The ironic thing is if that person had delusions about hidden forces listening to them…they’d be RIGHT!
I think the consequences of hackers obtaining health data like this would be unimaginable. OpenAI is far inferior to Apple when it comes to privacy and security protection.
A phrase I liked to describe what we're doing with LLMs is "building a personal panopticon". The benefits are immense but you're placing a huge bet on the landlord of the tower.
If it is genuinely beneficial, this will become an open source project that everyone is able to run with a local agent in their house that runs cold. I will make one if no one else will, but discovering how to make it ubiquitously helpful and not drought with legal liability is challenging. I welcome a company willing to take this early risk.
32 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 66.9 ms ] threadThis makes me not wanting to try out their new offering.
For example, it told him to go out and get a test on his own before meeting with a certain specialist, so the specialist didn’t order it during the first meeting and then need to wait for a follow up after reviewing it. He did this, gave the results to ChatGPT, which sounded the alarm. He sent a message with the results to his doctor and his appointment with the specialist was moved up to the same week, instead of 3 months out.
Parsing 100 different scientific articles or even google search results is not going to be possible before I get bored and move on. This is the value of LLM.
Even if the LLM data is used in training or sold off one way to protect oneself, is to add in knowingly incorrect data to the chat. You know it is incorrect, the LLM will believe it. Then the narrative is substantially changed.
Or wait like 6mo and the opensource Chinese models [Kimi/Qwen/Friends] will have caught up to Claude and Gemini IMO. Then just run these models quantized locally on Apple Silicon or GPU.
It's an AI written article IMHO.
I want regulators to keep an eye on this and make smart laws. I don't want it to go away, as its value is massive in my life.
(One example, if you are curious: I've been doing rehab for a back injury for about 10 years. I worked with a certified trainer/rehab professional for many years and built a program to keep me as pain-free as possible. I rebuilt the entire thing with ChatGPT/Gemini about 6 weeks ago, and I've had less pain than at any other point in my life. I spent at least 12 hours working with AI to test and research every exercise, and I've got some knowledge to help guide me, but I was amazed by how far it has come in 12 months. I ran the results by a trainer to double-check it was well thought out.)
And if it didn't work out and made you worse or, god forbid, the advice caused you to get seriously injured, then what? ChatGPT won't take any responsibility.
I have so many issues with our current health system but an alternative is not an unreliable search tool that takes no responsibility for the information it provides.
Did the doctors agree? I never thought of AI as a good patient navigator, but maybe that’s its proper role in healthcare.
I don't use LLMs as the final say, but I do find them pretty useful as a positive filter / quick gut check.
This is probably part of an effort to position them a potential vendor to help the government with this.
1) Claude
2) OpenAI
3) Grok
4) Gemini
I would give a lot of money to do so
Ultimately pharmaceutical companies pay up to $100,000 per participant to hospital networks these charges must be itemized as expenses from the hospital on the most part (bounties are illegal usually.) open AI would provide a cheap way in for pharmaceutical companies to identify participants given that OpenAI has an incredible perspective into the physical and psychological state of their users. Imagine how much more is shared with OpenAI compared to a clinical trial coordinator at a hospital when a psychiatric drug is being tested.
This would also give OpenAI leverage in partnering with pharmaceutical companies. OpenAI executives have stated this is a goal, but otherwise they’ve made little progress on it.
It’s wild to imagine - someone with borderline personality disorder having delusional conversations with an AI chat Bot for six months, receiving an offer to participate in a clinical trial, and then having their subsequent AI conversations used as evidence to analyze the efficacy of the drug. The ironic thing is if that person had delusions about hidden forces listening to them…they’d be RIGHT!
Data security will be another important factor in whether we should choose our private health information with these third parties or not.
Manage My Health in NZ was hacked earlier this week: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/583417/who-are-the-hacke...