Maybe you don't know but your car insurance drops you due to the risk you'll have a cardiac event while driving. Their AI flagged you.
You need a new job but the same AI powers the HR screening and denies you because you'll cost more and might have health problems. You'd never know why.
You try to take out a second on the house to pay for expenses, just to get back on your feet, but the AI-powered risk officer judges your payback potential to be %.001 underneath the target and are denied.
The previously treatable heart condition is now dire due to the additional stress of no job, no car and no house and the financial situation continues to erode.
You apply for assistance but are denied because the heart condition is treatable and you're then obviously capable of working and don't meet the standard.
It seems like an easy fix with legislation, at least outside the US, though. Mandatory insurance for all with reasonable banded rates, and maximum profit margins for insurers?
Your comment is extraordinarily naive.
Perhaps you were given some medication that is later proven harmful. Maybe there’s a sign in your blood test results that in future will strongly correlate with a condition that emerges in your 50s. Maybe a study will show that having no appendix correlates with later issues.
How confident are you that the data will never be used against you by future insurance, work screening, dating apps, immigration processes, etc
1. Is transexual but does not tell anybody they are and it is also not blatantly obvious
2. Writes down in a health record they are transexual (instead of whatever sex they are now)
3. Someone doxxes they/them medical records
4. Because of 3, and only because of 3, people find out that said person is transexual
5. And then ... the government decides to persecute they/them
Let's be real, you're really stretching it here. You're talking about a 0.1% of a 0.1% of a 0.1% of a 0.1% of a 0.1% situation here.
You could try to answer that instead of making up a strawman.
Dialogue 101 but some people still ignore it.
‘Being able to access people’s medical records is just another tool in law enforcement’s toolbox to prosecute people for stigmatized care'
They are already using the legal system in order to force their way into your medical records to prosecute you under their new 'anti-abortion' rulings.
https://pennsylvaniaindependent.com/reproductive_rights/texa...
Right. So able bodied, and the gender and race least associated with violence from the state.
> being discriminated against for insurance if you have a drug habit
"drug habit", Why choose an example that is often admonished as a personal failing? How about we say the same, but have something wholly, inarguably, outside of your control, like race, be the discriminating factor?
You medical records may be your DNA.
The US once had a racist legal principle called the "one drop rule": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
Now imagine an, lets say 'sympathetic to the Nazi agenda', administration takes control of the US gov's health and state sanctioned violence services. They decide to use those tools to address all of the, what they consider, 'undesirables'.
Your DNA says you have "one drop" of the undesirable's blood, some ancient ancestor you were unaware of, and this admin tells you they are going to discriminate against your insurance because of it based on some racist psuedoscience.
You say, "but I thought i was a 30 something WHITE male!!" and they tell you "welp, you were wrong, we have your medical records to prove it", you get irate that somehow your medical records left the datacenter of that llm company you liked to have make funny cat pictures for you and got in their hands, and they claim your behavior caused them to fear for their lives and now you are in a detention center or a shallow grave.
"That's an absurd exaggeration." You may say, but the current admin is already removing funding, or entire agencies, based on policy(DEI etc) and race(singling out Haitian and Somali immigrants), how is it much different from Jim Crow era policies like redlining?
If you find yourself thinking, "I'm a fitness conscious 30 something white male, why should I care?", it can help to develop some empathy, and stop to think "what if I was anything but a fitness conscious 30 something white male?"
>>>>>> Are you giving your vitals to Sam Altman just like that?
>>>>> Yes, if it will help me and others
>>>> What evidence do you have that providing your health information to this company will help you or anyone (other than those with financial interest in the company)
>>> I’m definitely a privacy fist person, but can you explain how health data could hurt you, besides obvious things like being discriminated against for insurance if you have a drug habit or whatever.
>> [explanation of why it might be worrisome]
> These points seem to be arguments against giving your health data to anybody, not just to an AI company.
I did not make any claims that it was useless; the context I was responding to was someone being dubious the there were risks after being asked whether they had any reason to assume that it would be beneficial to share specific info, and following that a conversation ensued about why it might make sense to err on the side of caution (independently of whether the company happens to be focused on AI).
To be explicit , I'm not taking a stance on whether the experiences cited elsewhere in the thread constitute sufficient evidence. My point isn't that there is no conceivable benefit, but that the baseline should be caution about sharing medical info, and then figuring out if there's enough of a reason to choose otherwise.
In this case, I suspect that the classic biases of HN (pro-privacy and anti-ai) might interact to dismiss the value that can be provided by a specialized medical llm/ agent (despite indications that an unspecialised one is already helpful!) while rightly pointing out the risks of sharing sensitive data.