Should AI generated posts be banned or otherwise regulated?

"80% of medical AI queries are factually wrong."

I assume this was a human generated answer. 

The claim is decent but requires significant qualification — it’s accurate in a narrow sense that gets badly distorted when stated baldly. 

A recent JAMA Network Open study evaluated 21 large language models across 29 clinical case scenarios and found that AI systems failed to provide the correct diagnosis in over 80% of early-stage cases, where symptoms are often non-specific.  The 80% figure applies specifically to early-stage differential diagnosis with minimal clinical information, not to medical queries generally.

Source:
 https://www.business-standard.com/health/ai-chatbots-misdiagnose-early-cases-80-percent-study-126041400329_1.html

But there’s more to it.

"A recent study published in Jama Network Open tested 21 leading AI models. The researchers asked them to work out possible medical diagnoses. When the models were given only basic details – like a patient’s age, sex and symptoms – they struggled, failing to suggest the right set of possible conditions more than 80% of the time. Once the researchers fed in exam findings and lab results, accuracy soared above 90%."

Source: 
https://theconversation.com/half-of-ai-health-answers-are-wrong-even-though-they-sound-convincing-new-study-280512

If precision is what you’re for, then be the change you want to see in the world.

John Dewey liked to say, "A problem well-put is a problem half solved."

If the question is not well put, the answer likely won’t be. Put in a better effort on your question/prompt and the answers will get better.

That does NOT mean that AI should take the place of human experience or that it’s worth the energy cost or that it’s valid to use for plagiarism, etc. But the claim being advanced is that it cannot  do a good job with facts. That just ain’t so in many cases.

@hilde45 "...I assume this was a human generated answer. " 

+1  Yup, had to be.

Thank you, @hilde45, for providing interesting information.

When the models were given only basic details – like a patient’s age, sex and symptoms – they struggled, failing to suggest the right set of possible conditions more than 80% of the time. Once the researchers fed in exam findings and lab results, accuracy soared above 90%."

There are more to it.  I want to highlight the following in the articles too.  Note that Nature Medicine journal receives a very high 5-year impact factor (citation) of 52 in 2024.  The multidisciplinary Nature received 55 in the same year.  These are highly prestigious journals. Typically, a journal with an impact factor of 10 or above is considered a “top” journal in its field of study.

A February 2026 study in Nature Medicine showed something surprising. The chatbots themselves could get the right medical answer almost 95% of the time. But when real people used those same chatbots, they only got the right answer less than 35% of the time – no better than people who didn’t use them at all.

This can not adequately illustrate the importance of how AI is used as a tool. Intelligent people make the best use of AI to their advantage, while average users may misuse it and continue to complain about it.

I REFUSE to read any AI generated posts.  I am interested in what members have to say, not AI generated garbage.  

So you "REFUSE to read any AI generated posts" even it is correct.  "I am interested in what members have to say" even they are wrong, not AI generated garbage.  Is it what you try to say?

I found a phenomenon quite interesting, and I think it’s often true: many people tend to appeal to authority, and in their minds, they may also aspire to become the authority one day. When AI appears to “steal the thunder / spotlight” or undermine that role, some people react by criticizing or attacking AI.

The fear that AI will take away jobs is also present, but it is not relevant here.