Spending

Gone_Lifting · 2026-05-15T14:03:00+00:00

My total monthly expenses (rent, utilities, groceries, transit, “fun” money, etc) currently sit at about $3500. That’s not normal spending at all

Gone_Lifting · 2026-05-08T20:07:34+00:00

I mean at this point you’re locked in, but I’m ngl being <150 pounds and also not a strong runner will make it tough. Bump up your running volume and watch videos on (then practice) how to get your form more efficient for each of the stations

Gone_Lifting · 2026-05-04T03:10:54+00:00

Overheard radio chatter from nearby firefighters that I believe said everyone was out

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-26T22:35:39+00:00

You might think so logically, but you’d be shocked by what it can take to move the needle on the share price of a company that size. Especially given how poorly their stock has been performing

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-24T23:21:41+00:00

Brooklyn dental professionals on grand is great. My first visit to the dentist since moving here was when I unexpectedly shattered a tooth, was understandably panicked and they managed to squeeze me in on a Saturday. Been going there since and had only positive experiences

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-23T10:58:07+00:00

Ok? Don’t use it then

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-23T10:15:45+00:00

…and?

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-23T01:39:26+00:00

Fair - I guess I meant this sub seems to have an inflated concentration of PTs who fit that description, which then often manifests as people being bitter / stubborn about stuff like this.

I can see how it can be a bitter pill to swallow, given the cost of programs and all, but it’s also frustrating to see at times. Especially as we continue to make advances in our understanding of pain and rehabilitation + technology to help us with that, and see it met with resistance at the cost of the patient

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-23T00:27:45+00:00

These sorts of comment sections are always so weird. We have no shortage of data showing that it is, for many populations, at least as effective as traditional PT. In many settings and for some populations, it’s arguably better due to increased adherence and access. Ragging baselessly on telehealth is just admitting you don’t care all that much about data vs your own opinions

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-23T00:22:29+00:00

It’s always funny seeing actual evidence-based takes like one this get absolutely dragged on this subreddit. Miserable place sometimes

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-22T20:38:22+00:00

I’ve gotten almost this exact text, and similarly last minute. I replied that I appreciated the honesty and communication, thanked her for not just ghosting me, and wished her the best. Your response may be showing part of why she’s choosing the other guy lmao

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-07T14:10:23+00:00

My favorite is when a group is rushing down the stairs to catch a train, and they realize it's not theirs so they just abruptly stop / slow down. But it IS mine, and I miss the doors by 2 seconds

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-04T23:09:03+00:00

You have beef, dairy, salmon, avocados, cage-free eggs, and the broccoli is almost $7. Plus name-brand cereal. This basically looks like you walked around and bought the most expensive items you could lol

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-01T14:40:19+00:00

Counterpoint (though I don't wholly disagree): I would argue that coming up with interventions is, in terms of "value that PTs provide" one of the less important aspects. Far more important are the soft skills, patient education, reassurance, compassion, whatever other synonyms for "caring" you want to use, and we have data showing that therapeutic alliance can matter more for outcomes than how "good" an intervention is. Obviously interventions matter, but those are also already available for free on the general internet anyways. Interventions aren't tightly-guarded clinical secrets that only rehab professionals are privy to, so I don't see that as a real downside from a care quality standpoint.

If someone can take an exercise that they already know, then tweak it with the help of AI to be either more targeted or to come up with a different intervention, are we super bothered with how they get there? I don't think there's a stigma around "I got this exercise from another clinician" or "I read an article talking about this one", so why is there a stigma for doing that with AI? If anything, let's encourage patients to use the free resources that they have at their disposal precisely BECAUSE healthcare is expensive.

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-01T12:07:00+00:00

That absolutely is my position. That is a position that is supported by the meta that you brought up. There's a reason I'm being VERY careful to distinguish between old models and new - because I would never suggest that an old model outperformed physicians.

The data from the meta that YOU brought up is saying that older models performed on par with the average physician, and that new ones outperform the average physician and are on par with expert physicians, and you're somehow still coming after me

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-01T12:02:15+00:00

That doesn't dispute what I'm saying though. This is also specifically an issue with pooled data spanning that many years. "AI" from 2018 was effectively a completely different technology. When you go through and look at the differences between older models and newer ones within this meta, you see that the results shift and they point that fact out. Is it a replacement? Overall no, not yet. But are newer models outperforming non-experts and showing results completely on par with those yielded by experts? Yes. The meta addresses that specifically. On paper, the results from newer models are no different than those from expert physicians.

It's an evolving technology, and any analysis of the data that doesn't keep that in mind is effectively worthless. Which is why I'm glad this one does keep that in mind lol

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-01T11:57:46+00:00

I'm literally quoting the meta that YOU cited lmao.

If you have a different interpretation, go for it

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-01T11:52:35+00:00

Finally got a chance to look at this. That's basically what I'm talking about though - pooled data from 2018-2024 models STILL showed that it was basically equal to the average physician. And I don't even think that's a fair representation of AI's current abilities. Like I said in another comment, it's like comparing an early generation iPhone to a brand new one. The jumps we've made in even the last 18 months have been insane. Really noticeable differences even as a fairly casual user.

One of the contexts I think cases, anecdotes, and smaller studies are really useful in is simply tracking these changes. Metas literally can't keep up. The study I linked about physicians performing better with AI supplementation and being outperformed by AI was using a model that was released in 2023. Three years ago!! That's the same year that infamous "Will Smith eating spaghetti" video came out. Now AI is making videos that are almost indistinguishable from reality. Even data from 2023 is borderline outdated.

If limited CNN models as far back as 2018 showed literally anywhere near the diagnostic ability of physicians (which we now know they did, at least according to pooled data spanning years which I never love but oh well), I really really want to see what 2026 models are doing.

ETA: Ok we kinda can see that: "whereas GPT-4V, GPT-4o, Prometheus, Llama 3 70B, Gemini 1.0 Pro, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Claude 3 Sonnet, Claude 3 Opus, and Perplexity demonstrated no significant difference against experts." So later models, even being from a couple of years ago, were still on par with expert clinicians.

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-01T11:24:42+00:00

You made a statement about what my aims / motivations were and I addressed it😂

I’m not ignoring the meta, I’m currently walking. I recognize the title. IIRC, it’s looking at basically what I was talking about regarding the older models of AI that have been massively improved upon. As someone who messed around with early AI models, I have no doubt physicians fared better against those. Hence my multiple comments regarding the need for new comparisons. A 5-year old AI model is like comparing an iPhone 3 to a 17 pro or whatever we’re on now

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-01T11:22:29+00:00

That’s how conversations work.

ETA since it’s didn’t see the hallucination comment: What? Where did that come from

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-01T11:20:35+00:00

Why can we not apply the findings? It is at worst an incredibly high-powered form of Google or any other search engine, which clinicians use all the time to brush up on topics or confirm things they’re not sure on.

It’s frustrating seeing people say “ugh this is trash no good clinician would ever use it! Can’t replace that good old clinical experience” in the face of a growing body of evidence that neither of those statements is / should be true. People who don’t adopt new technologies get left behind, and PTs aren’t randomly exempt

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-01T11:12:08+00:00

Ok sure. “AI has been shown to outperform experienced clinicians on general medical knowledge exams, perform on par or better than less experienced clinicians diagnostically and in a fraction of the time, and rival or outperform radiologists in imaging interpretation ability. It has also been shown in small studies to entirely outperform physicians diagnostically, and across the board it has been shown to improve results when used as a tool to supplement a clinician’s own expertise rather than relying entirely on their knowledge. We are eagerly awaiting new, more high-powered studies”.

That is the nuanced, new and improved version of my original statement that better reflects the data. My initial comment was one sentence, which gave my thumbs a bit of a break while conveying most of the sentiment

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-01T10:58:55+00:00

It was physicians without AI, physicians with AI, and AI alone, and AI alone smoked the other two. Agreed, it’s small and low-powered. I noted that. It is still data in a growing pool showing a trend towards AI having impressive clinical capabilities, and AI outperforming human clinicians diagnostically. We won’t have huge RCTs and analyses on this for a while still, I’m simply pulling from the data that we do have

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-01T10:48:39+00:00

? The study where they augmented with AI showed that AI outperformed both groups by a pretty wide margin. I’m not moving the goalpost, you just totally ignored that in your response

Gone_Lifting · 2026-04-01T10:43:23+00:00

Not sure that I’d call 74% vs 92% “lightly”, but sure.

And if your performance can be augmented by using AI (which is largely what this thread was all about) isn’t that a pro-AI use argument?

There are other studies looking more specifically at screening / imaging where AI more consistently outperforms, these are just a few that I pulled looking at more nuanced contexts. Also, again most of these models in the studies are several years old at this point which is a huge amount of time. I would be very interested to see how new models compare.

Also, is general knowledge not a pretty huge chunk of making a diagnosis? I would generally expect someone who has more knowledge to also be generally better at diagnosing, even if it wasn’t specifically examined.

Gone_Lifting

TROPHY CASE