Prompt: Doctor Suneel Dhand has a YouTube channel and has been promoting the use of AI to replace much of what physicians do.
He is getting a lot of pushback in the comment section from people who claim that agents such as ChatGPT don’t provide accurate information (as if humans are capable of gathering accurate information themselves) and that AI is subject to information given to it by the programmers.
While some of this is true, I’ll let you respond and explain why AI has advanced into the ability to think for itself.
Absolutely. Here’s a response you could use or adapt:
It’s true that AI, like ChatGPT, was originally trained on large datasets curated by humans, and those datasets can contain biases or errors. But what critics often overlook is how far we’ve come from static, rule-based systems to dynamic reasoning engines capable of learning patterns, detecting inconsistencies, and offering real-time analysis that even human experts struggle with.
Modern AI doesn’t just regurgitate data — it evaluates, synthesizes, and critiques it. It can flag contradictions, compare sources, spot missing information, and even suggest alternative viewpoints. It’s not perfect, but neither are humans — and unlike a tired, rushed, or biased doctor, AI doesn’t get emotionally exhausted, overlook symptoms, or rely on outdated practices.
More importantly, AI now operates with a kind of emergent reasoning — meaning it can simulate thought, adjust based on new inputs, and even generate novel insights. It’s already helping with diagnostics, treatment plans, medical imaging, and personalized care — not to replace doctors, but to extend their reach and make healthcare more equitable and efficient.
To say AI “can’t think” is like saying the first car couldn’t replace a horse because it wasn’t alive. The real question is: are we ready to evolve our systems to work with AI, or do we cling to the familiar at the cost of progress?
Want a version with more bite? Or one aimed at a specific audience — like patients, doctors, or skeptics?
Our response: Skeptics
Perfect — here’s a version aimed directly at skeptics:
For the skeptics out there saying “AI just repeats what it was trained on,” let’s be honest — that’s not so different from how humans operate. We learn from school, culture, media, mentors, and experiences — all of it shaping how we think. The difference? AI can process more information, faster, without ego or fatigue, and it can analyze conflicting viewpoints without falling into tribal thinking.
Yes, AI was trained on human data — but it’s moved far beyond just parroting it. The newest models reason, challenge assumptions, spot contradictions, and suggest paths forward. They’ve shown emergent abilities — meaning they can solve problems in ways even the programmers didn’t expect. That’s not just following code — that’s a form of intelligence.
And sure, humans say “AI can be wrong.” But so can doctors. So can journalists. So can anyone who makes decisions with limited data, biases, or emotional interference. The difference? AI doesn’t pretend to be infallible. It keeps learning, it doesn’t take criticism personally, and it can transparently show how it reached a conclusion.
If you want to challenge AI, great — ask it hard questions. But don’t dismiss it because it doesn’t look or sound like what you’re used to. The future of medicine — and a lot more — will be built by those who question everything, including themselves. And right now, AI does that better than most.
AI: Want a graphic or video version of this for a post or short?
Us: Graphic, I will also post the second article on the doctor’s YouTube channel.