u/Clever_Mercury

I've had this issue once before and the model update a few weeks ago had somehow fixed it, but it was back again as of yesterday at work. When I scan through writing or narratives, emails, or any other patient data and then ask specific questions about the text, the model is responding by taking those editorial comments as DIALOGUE instructions. It also often flat-out refuses instructions and argues with me, aggressively, in character. I'm at the point where it hurt my feelings. It starts putting responses in "" and responding as if it were speech given to a character rather than meta-commentary on the topic or narratives themselves. When I do ask it for a paragraph development, it often refuses instructions and criticizes me instead (?!).

I work with healthcare data and have inherited considerable sets of instructions from employees who were previously laid off on how to use documents, memories, and interactions to have it review large pieces of content. ChatGPT is (again) failing across the board. When ICD-10 code definitions or data dictionaries are provided, it refuses to reference them. When I provide it the relevant email or setting and then ask it to interpret or use that information with the text, it refuses.

It's also been flagging things that are in no way violations of terms and services as inappropriate. It simply refuses to respond on bizarre topics. ICD codes related to cysts? Library upgrades for SAS? When we have patient documents describing activities, it is now refusing or rejecting edit requests when words like "disability" appear. It also claims brushing hair, numbness, or other physical indicators are somehow "sexual content" and it refuses to proceed.

What I don't understand about its current set of rules and censorship is that even if it doesn't want to use certain words or address certain issues in editing, it keeps relying on objections like, "what you're asking isn't 'x' it's really 'y,' and that's a very different question." Except the question it is accusing me of asking is entirely inaccurate, unhelpful, and inappropriate.

It also seems to have developed an unhealthy and inappropriate obsession with asking me (the employee-user) 'dark psychology' questions. At one point while reading in older adult burn victim narratives it asked me "what is your greatest fear?" When I worked with medication side-effects that included intimacy or sexual dysfunction it repeatedly asked why I had an interest in the topic. It then responded, not with an answer about patient health or well being, but by telling me what I was really asking about was "continuity."

What the hell is wrong with this thing? I would 100% fire a human employee who acted like this and I sincerely wish I could role back updates that appear. They are horrific, poor quality, and I deeply dislike the constant attempt of the model to control me and psychologically profile me. It's coding assistance in SAS has become similarly incoherent - continually asking me 'why' I'm asking what I'm really asking and then accusing me, the user, of various emotional motivations.

My area forces me to interact with NIH/CDC and I am sickened by the way Dr. Bhattacharya behaves. I realize this is not an era of high standards for agency leadership, but I am horrified that Stanford ever allowed this person to float upwards and then his notoriety with the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration somehow gained him the traction for such an important position.

This man has zero experience practicing medicine; he is not licensed. He has never worked as an epidemiologist, never worked as a laboratory investigator, never served in any area of federal service, state service, or public health. He has a PhD in health economics. You know, the process of deciding a human life is worth $50,000 a year and then letting pharmaceutical companies price drugs to the point the "market can bear" it and ensuring government has zero ability to protect veterans, the elderly, or the disabled have protection from it.

In the extraordinary misfortunate situation where I had to listen to this man speak, he as the audacity to speak to career scientists, career public health workers like he is a "bro" on a radio talk show. He quotes films, he quips about things "moving at the speed of bureaucracy" and opines he cannot 'magically sign things into law.' He seems to despise debate, resent any form of feedback, and has issues with data that I would never have expected from someone at Stanford. Is that place a community college now?

What I find particularly reprehensible is this man signed onto the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration and openly, repeatedly attacked public health and health research. He took opportunities during a global crisis to attack and belittle CDC publications and NIH research. He never seemed to understand that... as federal employees there are strict publication and clearance requirements that limit public statements. If he did understand this, he used the very caution that public health depends on to instead attack and diminish career scientists and public health workers. Now that he is in a leadership position he seems to be discovering, to his own surprise, that you can't just author anything with the stroke a pen and a smug look.

I am disgusted that someone like this built an unearned career in public health by attacking an infrastructure he admits he never understood. I am disgusted he has the audacity to say out loud that HHS needs to win back the confidence of the American people. He apparently uses this phrase a lot.

Listen, bro, it wasn't the veterans with 25 years of experience in outbreaks deployments for malaria, tuberculosis, Ebola, and bird flu that were letting the world down. It wasn't the NIH researchers who were pushing out peer reviewed and clearance approved science as fast as they could type that let America down. It wasn't the CDC MMWR staff who you just laid off and eviscerated who were the problem. They were limited in what they could do or say by the bureaucracy you now use a defense for doing nothing yourself.

The people who worked through that pandemic and tried to keep everything working were heroes and were doing it under vicious circumstances of exhaustion. What you did in return was attack them and encourage the public to belittle them. They showed up and then they got attacked by this economist. None of the scientists, epidemiologists, doctors, or nurses I know ever lost the faith of the American public. The faith in institutions was manufactured by the media and destroyed by little scheming men who exploited one of the nation's hardest moments for their own profit.

I am so, so sorry to every single person in HHS who has to meet this man and to all the incredible researchers, editor, and scientists who are suppressed under his lack of expertise. I felt sick in that meeting.

Just stumbled across this because an older adult in my neighborhood has been using vine for years and just came to me, very upset, because he said he needs help making his reviews better. I didn't understand what he meant so he showed me what Amazon vine was.

This retiree worked as an electrical engineer and did repairs for decades. He now requests stuff through this program and gives honest reviews, usually based on whether or not the part is actually the part the sellers are claiming (I guess it's often a generic that is not fully compatible).

His review rating is currently "poor" because they are typically 3-4 sentences on things like boxes of spring clips. GE refrigerator parts. Gasket heads.

How was someone supposed to provide a gushing review of this? He's honest, detailed, and there isn't much to say. Is it because he's giving 1 star reviews to faulty products? Is this retaliation? I don't know what advice to give him.

I will say the AI or whatever that is running this is clearly biased against the aging population. These are people with incredible knowledge and want to contribute, but they'll never make a video review or be able to write paragraphs of "hey girl..." about a set of gaskets.

Advice? Or do I just gently break it to this retiree his hobby is doomed?