By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent case study published in the American College of Physicians Journals details the hospitalization of a 60-year-old man who developed bromism after consulting ChatGPT. The man, seeking to eliminate sodium chloride from his diet, followed the chatbot’s advice and replaced table salt with sodium bromide, leading to paranoia, hallucinations, and dermatologic symptoms. After spending three weeks in the hospital, he was finally discharged. The case highlights the dangers of relying on AI for medical advice, as ChatGPT and similar systems can generate inaccurate information.
Read the original article here
A man asked ChatGPT how to remove salt from his diet. It landed him in the hospital.
This headline, and the situation it describes, is a perfect storm of human fallibility and the nascent, and often misunderstood, capabilities of artificial intelligence. Let’s break this down. Essentially, someone sought medical advice from a large language model, and the result was a trip to the emergency room. The key takeaway isn’t necessarily that ChatGPT is inherently dangerous, but rather that the user’s actions, combined with a misunderstanding of what the tool is, created a hazardous situation. The fact that someone with a background in nutrition, a field of study, would do something this is insane.
The core of the problem seems to stem from the user’s desire to remove chloride from his diet. He understood that chloride is a component of table salt (sodium chloride) and wrongly assumed that it could be safely swapped out with something else. He asked ChatGPT for advice, which seems to have suggested sodium bromide as a substitute, likely for other purposes like cleaning. It’s not entirely clear if ChatGPT explicitly recommended this as a dietary replacement. However, the individual then took it upon himself to conduct a personal experiment, substituting sodium bromide for table salt, and subsequently landed himself in the hospital. The article fails to clarify what was asked, but the information is still being improperly interpreted.
The first, and perhaps most crucial, element here is that ChatGPT is not a medical professional. It’s a sophisticated language model, trained on vast amounts of text data. It’s designed to generate human-like responses to prompts, not to provide accurate medical diagnoses or dietary advice. It also doesn’t understand. It has no understanding of biology, chemistry, or the intricacies of human health. And, most importantly, it can’t verify the accuracy of the information it presents. It can, and often does, “hallucinate” – meaning it can generate false or misleading information that appears convincing.
Then we can move to the user’s understanding of the information. It’s important to remember that he did not use a doctor. He had some education in nutrition. The information was not being used correctly. There’s no way to properly convey information that isn’t being used correctly. Even if it gave the correct information, the user misinterpreted what it was provided. The user’s judgment, informed by a basic understanding of nutrition, led him to a dangerous path. His decision to replace sodium chloride with sodium bromide highlights a critical lack of understanding of basic chemistry, the biological effects of various salts, and the necessity of consulting with a qualified health professional before making any drastic dietary changes. It is not clear if it explicitly recommended this as a dietary replacement.
This incident underscores the need for critical thinking and responsible use of AI tools. People should not treat large language models like ChatGPT as authoritative sources of medical information. The role of a physician can not be replaced. They are a tool, and should be approached with the same skepticism you would use when researching information on the internet. Always cross-reference, verify the information, and consult with experts before making significant decisions, especially those concerning your health. This also illustrates that you can not save the stupid.
The conversation surrounding this event also highlights a broader debate about the ethical and societal implications of AI. Some argue that tech companies are pushing these technologies too aggressively, potentially leading to harm. Others suggest that the primary responsibility lies with the users, who must exercise caution and use these tools responsibly. The question of liability also arises: can the AI or the company behind it be held accountable for the harm caused by the tool’s output? The answer, for now, remains unclear, but legal and ethical discussions are already underway.
In conclusion, the story of the man who ended up in the hospital after seeking dietary advice from ChatGPT is a cautionary tale. It’s a lesson in the limitations of AI, the importance of critical thinking, and the paramount need to consult with qualified professionals when making crucial decisions about your health. The best way to approach these tools is to use them to find information, but always use human reason as the final filter. The key to navigating the AI landscape lies not only in understanding the capabilities of these models but also in recognizing and embracing human expertise and common sense.