Back

ChatGPT-o1 and the Pitfalls of Familiar Reasoning in Medical Ethics

Soffer, S.; Sorin, V.; Nadkarni, G.; Klang, E.

2024-09-27 medical ethics
10.1101/2024.09.25.24314342 medRxiv
Show abstract

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT often exhibit Type 1 thinking--fast, intuitive reasoning that relies on familiar patterns--which can be dangerously simplistic in complex medical or ethical scenarios requiring more deliberate analysis. In our recent explorations, we observed that LLMs frequently default to well-known answers, failing to recognize nuances or twists in presented situations. For instance, when faced with modified versions of the classic "Surgeons Dilemma" or medical ethics cases where typical dilemmas were resolved, LLMs still reverted to standard responses, overlooking critical details. Even models designed for enhanced analytical reasoning, such as ChatGPT-o1, did not consistently overcome these limitations. This suggests that despite advancements toward fostering Type 2 thinking, LLMs remain heavily influenced by familiar patterns ingrained during training. As LLMs are increasingly integrated into clinical practice, it is crucial to acknowledge and address these shortcomings to ensure reliable and contextually appropriate AI assistance in medical decision-making.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
26.2%
2
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.9%
3
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.3%
50% of probability mass above
4
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.9%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.4%
6
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 11%
3.1%
7
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.5%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 49%
2.1%
9
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
10
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
11
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.7%
12
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
13
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 35%
1.5%
14
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.5%
15
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
16
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
17
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
Epidemics
104 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
Neuroscience of Consciousness
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
21
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
22
Frontiers in Psychology
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
23
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%