Can we have ANY sources here at all or are we just posting AI gen shit in antiAI now?
So now you’ll have to pay $200 every time you have an important question you need answered? My PCP just tells me to use over the counter products anyways. Also is this NY state or city? Why is there a picture of Mamdani?
No you will just need to sign into a VPN
There are no sources for any of this AI generated Facebook bullshit.
AI is pretty good at helping with very straightforward tax and legal questions. Also, can a lawyer use AI for legal advice? Lawyers are already using AI for a ton of stuff. This sounds hamfisted.
I’d rather have AI as the CEO of my company, than as my doctor. But this feels a bit like overreach.
Finally.
Smart GovOS policy keeping human CDMWorlds accountable.
Modern capitalism derives it’s scarcity via artificial means such as legislation.
The only thing this does is restrict the means of information to the people of NYC. Have you used traditional web search for health/legal/etc. advice? Even pre-2015 if you didn’t know what you’re doing you would get the most unhinged, predatory, incorrect advice imaginable, but legislating away access wasn’t going to make health information more correct, accurate, or equitable. It would’ve just further entrenched the predatory health/legal/etc. industry as the gatekeepers of that knowledge.
This is no different.
I understand the sentiment but I think this is too far of a pushback. Restricting access to information even though it may be inaccurate or misleading isn’t the right answer. AI is a tool. I’d wager, force a prompt to specifically be visible whenever subjects break that. Essentially the cigerette equivelant “THIS PRODUCT KILLS YOU” but something like “AI RESPONSES TO MEDICAL INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS ACCURATE.”
I feel like this logic should of banned search engines since they could provide links to sites with misinformation.
In what way is this restricting information? AI usually just summarizes info that was already trivially searchable
AI shouldn’t be an excuse to take a job, it can be a tool but that’s it
Let’s build all the massive data centers but then we’ll just make using them illegal
deleted by creator
i am kinda on your side, if only because representation now a days is non existent, or unreachable for anyone other then those from wealth. if the argument is that it can’t be trusted to argue case law, i kinda agree, but it’s capable of reaching dayta that a person needs in a manner that any user can convey.
would you ban librarians from helping people find books for certain topics?
Maybe I’m just ignorant about this, but it feels a bit “gatekeepy” to outlaw answering questions about the law itself. Like… so I can’t use an LLM to help do taxes? Or if I’m served a confusing legal document, I have to pay an expensive attorney to understand the legalese? I can’t even just get a rough idea from an LLM first?
EDIT: Also I’ve literally had a professional accountant send me a ChatGPT conversation they had because they didn’t know tax law well enough. I feel like if anything that should be outlawed. Professionals should actually have to know shit and know how to research primary sources.
I would say its to protect people, if you ask a LLM for a legal answer and trust it, then you could get into legal trouble when it turns out to be wrong.
Not only are LLMs wrong like ~1/10th of the time (for the more advanced ones) but law is also an area where there is black and white rules, but also there is interpretation of some aspects.
Some things are set in stone and some are about understanding the intention of the law and being able to back that up in a court if it was challenged.Do you want the public trusting a LLM that says “oh yes you can claim a tax deduction for an Xbox because its for stress relief related to your job” and then you get whacked with a fine for incorrectly filing your tax.
Using a LLM to help your draft an email to your uncle = low risk. Using a LLM to help you decide if you actually need a medical procedure your doctor has reccomended = high risk.
If that was the logic we were using then Wikipedia shouldn’t be allowed to have articles on health and law either. WebMD shouldn’t have ever been legal either.
Obviously, the benefits to having that information available outweigh the hypothetical negatives. Even with them being incorrect, partial and easy to draw invalid conclusions from, having the information be freely and readily accessible is better for everyone.
I think the distinction is that looking up wikipedia or any other website that appears to have topics of information you can learn from is different from asking a tailored answer to your specific query.
One feels like more like research to improve your understanding, but you know you would have to go to a professional to ask specific questions around your circumstances.
And the other feels like your own ‘personal professional’ that answers all your little specific questions, but is really just a complex algorithm trying to make you happy and doesnt know if is telling you right or wrong, only that it shouldnt say it doesnt know.A program that can be very confidently wrong while giving people advice that can mess up their life (healthcare, finiancial, legal advice, etc) could benefit some, but will ruin others make it not worth the risk?
A program that can be very confidently wrong while giving people advice that can mess up their life
Literally WebMD.
I think there’s an assumption that professionals are always correct. They are not. Professionals are also heavily trained to “[try] to make you happy and doesnt know if [they are] telling you right or wrong, only that [they] shouldnt say [they don’t] know.”
You’re also neglecting how bad health care access, and legal etc., is. Especially in countries like the USA where access to healthcare is financially gated and increasing extraction makes “go[ing] to a professional” not possible unless you wait >6 months to go somewhere that’s a >3hr commute from where you live. WebMD, Wikipedia and chatbots can help to decide whether the >$1,000 and 7hr professional consultation is worth it, and if so be more informed going in so that the time is better spent.
That being said, poor healthcare can absolutely have worse outcomes than no healthcare. I do believe that is a minority of situations, however I also lack any hard evidence to really back that up. Do you have any?
I guess it’s like banning loan sharks. Sure some people could only.get loans through them because banks were racist or whatever. But it’s objectively bad for everyone using it mainly because when it’s bad its really really bad.
law in itself is very gatekeepy - you have to learn the “correct” way to interpret the words and then get certified for it.
More like you as an average person have no idea what it’s hallucinating and what is the truth and may end up in jail or the hospital like the cases that are starting to get reported on who did just that.
with a group of people that has a bias towards a certain delusion, and/or high acceptance of directly scientifically contradictory beliefs, you can get a bubble and affirm themselves out of reality in the same way. i also wouldn’t suggest banning groups of people, but i believe with groups or with LLMs, a good grounding in both scientific thinking is the best way to keep ‘stable’ away from delusion.
a shame that grants are being filtered by a project 2025 author right now, and a bunch of important science got cut by this admin.
also see it like mobile phones, which instead of being useful mobile personal computers, we got data collection bricks that has a skeleton of a few practical tools built into the soft edges of a giant gambling and addiction pipeline.
there’s a whole rant about the high-level psychological manipulation employed against average people just to make them more comfortable losing their money, which does not mean that portable personal computers are bad, but the failure of anti-trust and consumer protection has allowed all technological and social development to be hindered purely for the extractive demands of the people who actually get to decide what happens.
as long as you keep the general public too tired to think about it, you just have to convince them that some other small group is their tribal enemy and that’s where your collective focus and energy should be going, rather than the more simple answer of rich assholes being opportunistic and stupid/evil.
Add edibility of wild plants to the list please
New York State not New York City.
I don’t know why Mamdani is pictured. I think it is because the proposal was introduced in the State Senate by Kisten Gonzalez who is a DSA member.
New York State not New York City.
I don’t know why Mamdani is pictured
the text in this image is also just flat-out wrong: the proposed legislation does not actually “ban AI from answering questions” on these subjects at all, as this post claims it does.
https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026/kristen-gonzalez/ny-state-senator-kristen-gonzalez-her-bill-address-ai explains that her bill is strictly about impersonating licensed professionals:
We have documented instances of AI chatbots providing false medical license numbers to users and documented cases of real harm from AI chatbots providing misinformation. This is what my common-sense legislation addresses—protecting users from misinformation, scams, and fraud. This legislation does not prohibit a user from asking a chatbot questions or receiving general information and advice, as long as the chatbot is not presenting that information as a licensed professional. It would also not prohibit licensed professionals from consulting AI technology in the course of their work.
Fake news? On my social media??
Fake news? On my social media??
I’m surprised that this post is still up so many hours after i (and i’m sure others) reported it, especially given the large number of moderators that this community has.
This makes way more sense.
I really think this is a bad idea these should really just be flagged, there’s many situations where asking these questions in necessary and there’s few if any other ways to get an answer
Sorta agree. Maybe force them to have a very obvious sign that says AI is routinely wrong about these topics specifically and are not a source to consider reliable, and then also offer a helpline where one can get reasonable answers even if the answer is “unfortunately you need to seek expert opinion on this”
But googling basic labor laws and simple healthcare tricks should be acceptable like stretches for wrist or knee pain, skin/hair care or what level of diarrhea is hospital worthy should be fine.
Same, especially for medical advices.
I am currently going through a very complex diagnosis of combination of SCDS and migraines, and neck joint / facial nerve issues through multiple doctors - ENT, neurologists and so on.
Having AI backing me up with providing a structural understanding from multiple disconnected sources is a huge blessing.
Especially when you die from migraine, and trying to understand are symptoms worth to go to emergency ward or not.
AI can’t back you up better than you can with your own research. Why are you even considering AI credible? What gives it credibility?
It’s not credible, but you can ask it for a credible source and read that, which is still incredibly helpful.
The problem with medical questions like these is LLM would spew out info confidently that doctors/specialist don’t even know the answer to. LLM doesn’t know when it’s guessing.
Ask it for a source and verify it, you can even give the source to a doctor if you can’t
It’s not worth trusting AI with your life over a doctor. If in doubt, go to the emergency ward (assuming you’re not American, if you’re American then you’re fucked either way).
If you’re an american the AI is worth using, as you can ask it for a credible source and verifying that is much faster.
I feel like finding and citing appropriate law cases would be a great way for AI to be used, especially because the bullshit legal-ese that surrounds everything in court cases is so spectacularly opaque and trivial that you have to pay out the nose just for someone to parse through all the bullshit… Like, lawyers shouldn’t even be a thing you need unless it’s for some really complicated case. The courtroom should be a place where an average citizen could speak for themselves.
Also, as someone who studied medicine… Do you know how often doctors will take a patients history, step outside the exam room, and then google shit? I don’t want to imply that they don’t know what they’re doing, like, you need to study medicine to know what to google, BUT… they still be googling shit. I think AI could be trained to ask the same patient history questions that a nurse asks. Then using the answers to those questions, then they can provide some feedback, with a big ol disclaimer that it’s NOT to be taken seriously, and you should consult with a physician.
I’d agree with you to some extent if people weren’t so god damn stupid. So many lazy fucks just take the AI’s output at face value, believing it to be some all knowledgeable god, rather than a compilation of all human biases expressed on the internet with a bunch of hallucinations thrown in for good measure.
It’s a great search engine for case law, but yeah most people are too stupid to use it.
Yeah, I don’t disagree, it can be a decent starting point, emphasis important lol
When people say “AI” these days, they mean the LLM-derived generative AI such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, and Grok.
These AI systems are not capable of finding authoritative search results. They are good at generating fluent, plausible, context-appropriate text. In legal and medical situations, that’s the opposite of what you’d want.
Do you know how often doctors will take a patients history, step outside the exam room, and then google shit?
Think about how often the doctors land on some pseudo-science result. Now imagine that instead of a doctor it’s a patient and instead of asking “could these be related” the patient is told “these are related”.
a big ol disclaimer that it’s NOT to be taken seriously
This has worked very well for Fox News, which is not a news agency and is for entertainment purpose only. Also for dietary supplements, which are not medicine.
Specifically tuned LLMs that are trained on medical databases and less sycophant (E.g. OpenEvidence) are one of the killer applications of AI. Tons of frivolous AI nonsense but this could actually save lives. Access to broad knowledge and connections that a doctor can make use of.
We’re demanding and regulating the complete wrong shit about AI.
In that we aren’t regulating any of it?
What would be your demands for regulation?
I’ve seen purpose built models for things like patent examination and its clear that AI can be incredibly useful. I think if the implementation of AI was not so abusive and destructive people would not be so unwilling to see the good uses.
We live in a late stage capitalist boring dystopia, of course the rollout for AI is going to be abusive and destructive. The real problem is the unlimited greed and billions of freshly printed money in an overheated capitalist economy that is poured into marketing and destructive causes. But interfering in the “free market” doesn’t ever enter the liberals mind so we get this dysfunctional reaction.
AI corporations should be nationalized and turned into public utilities, and put under the mandate that they work for the betterment of the population and economy, not for profit. They cannot be trusted to use AI safely. It’s potentially dangerous technology, more dangerous than nuclear power. We should pour billions into AI research but with the objective to make it useful and safe, not to maximize shareholder value.
Outlawing people from using expert AI models to get expert advice is idiotic at best, malicious at worst. Next they’ll ban using open source AI models locally. Plutocrats are going to want to collect rent on AI usage.
I agree completely, especially considering the models were trained off human content without our consent collectively or individually. They are ours by all possible interpretations.
I do think there is a certain poetry that vast amounts of humanities written works went into training and creating the LLM. They are a true miracle - even if their current ability is very often vastly overstated and they are still pretty low IQ, they are the first thinking machines. Just that intelligence without sentience is possible is an amazing discovery.
And answering general health questions isn’t how AI is being used in the medical field.
