Tag Archives: eliminating

Humans Experience Rare Conditions After Querying CHATGPT and Eliminating Salt

Posted on by
Reply

American medical journals are cautioning against the use of ChatGPT for health-related information after a case involving men who developed a rare condition following their discussions with chatbots about eliminating table salt from their diets.

A chronicled case in internal medicine highlights that a 60-year-old man experienced bromism, also referred to as bromide toxicity, after consulting ChatGPT.

This case study mentioned that bromism was a “well-recognized” syndrome in the early 20th century, contributing to psychiatric hospitalizations for about one in ten individuals during that period.

After learning about the negative effects of sodium chloride (table salt), the patient sought guidance from ChatGPT on eliminating chloride from his diet and disclosed that he had been consuming sodium bromide for three months. This action occurred despite previous reading that “chloride can be exchanged for bromide, but is likely for other purposes such as cleaning.” Sodium bromide was historically used as a sedative in the early 20th century.


The article’s author, an alumnus of Washington University in Seattle, emphasized that this incident underscores “how the use of artificial intelligence contributes to preventable health outcomes.”

They noted that the lack of access to the patient’s ChatGPT conversation logs hindered their ability to ascertain the specific advice the man received.

Regardless, the author found that when querying ChatGPT for alternatives to chloride, the responses also included bromide, lacking specific health warnings, and did not inquire about the author’s reasons for seeking such information; “I think healthcare professionals typically would do that,” they remarked.

The author cautioned that ChatGPT and other AI applications can “generate scientific inaccuracies and critically debate results, ultimately spreading misinformation.”

OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, was approached for a statement.

The company recently announced an upgrade for its chatbot, asserting that one of its notable strengths lies in health-related queries. Powered by the GPT-5 model, ChatGPT excels in answering health questions and aims to be more proactive in “flagging potential concerns” like serious physical and mental illnesses. However, it stressed that chatbots cannot replace expert advice.

An article published last week before the release of GPT-5 indicated that the patient had likely interacted with an earlier version of ChatGPT.

While recognizing that AI could serve as a conduit between scientists and the public, the article warned that the technology also risks disseminating “decontextualized information,” emphasizing that medical professionals would rarely suggest sodium bromide in response to inquiries about replacing table salt.

The authors encouraged physicians to consider using AI in understanding where patients derived their information.

The author narrated that a patient suffering from bromism introduced himself at a hospital and expressed concern about a neighbor possibly being addicted to him. He also mentioned having several dietary restrictions and was noted to have paranoia regarding the water provided to him despite intense thirst.

The patient attempted to leave the hospital within 24 hours of admission and was subsequently sectioned before receiving treatment for mental health issues. Once stabilized, he reported various other bromism symptoms, including facial acne, relentless thirst, and insomnia.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Trump’s latest method of eliminating regulations: My word is law

Posted on by
Reply

This week, President Trump oversaw 10 federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Agency and the Nuclear Regulation Authority. Implement a new procedure Discarding a wide array of years of energy and environmental regulations.

He told the agency that oversees everything from gas pipelines to power plants and oversees everything that inserts “sunset” provisions, which automatically expire by October 2026. If an agency wanted to maintain the rules, it could only extend it for up to five years at a time.

Experts say the directive faces major legal hurdles. But it was one of three executive orders from Trump on Wednesday, and he declared that he was pursuing new shortcuts to weaken or eliminate restrictions.

in Another orderhe directed a rollback of federal regulations that restrict the water flow of shower heads with a very unusual legal justification.

“No notices and comments are required as I’m ordering it to be abolished,” Trump’s order said.

Legal experts called the sentence a surprising, violating decades of federal law. 1946 Management Procedures Federal agencies require that they go through a lengthy “notice and comment” process when issuing, amending or repealing key rules, and in general, agencies that do not follow these procedures often find actions blocked by the court.

“In that respect, this is all completely illegal,” said Jody Freeman, director of the Harvard Law School Environment and Energy Law Program. A former White House official under President Barack Obama. “They don’t care if the real lawyers have left the building, they want to hug all of these cases and see if the court bites or not.”

The regulatory process has often been criticized as troubling and time-consuming, and the idea of ​​periodically expiring all government regulations has been promoted in conservative circles for many years. It is known as Zero-based regulatory budgets, A twist on a zero-based financial budget. This is a system in which budgets are built from scratch each year, instead of taking over historic spending amounts.

The idea may have received recent boost from Elon Musk, the billionaire adviser to Trump. “Essentially, regulations should have no default,” Musk said. Public Call His social media site X in February. “The default is gone, not the default. And if it turns out that the restrictions have missed the mark, you can always add it again.”

“We have to clean up the wholesale prostitution of regulations and we have to keep government away from the backs of everyday Americans so that people can get things done,” Musk added.

It is unclear how much the order of the sunset will affect it. Legal experts said the executive order “does not apply to a regulatory permit system that allows regulations approved by the law.”

“We’re excited to see the importance of our efforts to help people change,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Climate Change Law Center at Columbia University. “Most environmental laws appear to fall into that category.”

“The president is right to assure that he doesn’t see Americans mentioning that they are unconstitutional or that they are restraining American energy and competitiveness that is inconsistent with federal law,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement.

In another order called “title”Instructing the abolition of illegal regulationsTrump gave 60 days to ministers 60 days to identify federal rules they deemed illegal and to plan to abolish them. The order said that agency managers can bypass the notification and comment process by taking advantage of the exceptions that experts say are usually booked for emergencies.

However, legal experts said the laws written by Congress, which govern the way federal agencies remove regulations, are extremely strict.

Typically, if a federal agency, such as the EPA, issues or changes regulations, it will first publish the proposed rules and make the time to comment. Agency officials then read and respond to the comments, providing detailed evidence in support of the changes they want to make, indicating that they have addressed public concerns. The agency then publishes the final rules.

“The Management Procedure Act is a boring, sounding law that no one cares about, but we treat it as a basis in our legal profession,” Freeman said. “It tells the federal government that it needs to purposefully do things, take public opinions and rationally adhere to their actions. It’s a promise that the government is not arbitrary.”

There is Specific conditions If the agent can bypass certain steps. For example, if emergency regulations regarding plane safety need to be issued.

However, the Trump administration appears to be using this so-called legitimate cause exception to push for revoking much broader federal rules.

In the past, courts have had little patience when federal agencies tried to circumvent the regulatory process. During Trump’s first term, officials sometimes announced that they had taken important measures and that they had wiped the restrictions out just to be reversed by the court. According to a database held by New York University, the administration lost 76% of cases where environmental policy was challenged, losing a much higher loss rate than previous administrations. Research Institute for Policy Integrity.

This time, Trump administration officials may want the court to be more sympathetic. With three Supreme Court judges appointed by Trump, the court now has a conservative vast majority who have expressed deep skepticism about environmental regulations.

In some cases, administration actions may be legally defensible. For example, when moving to abolish shower water flow restrictions, Trump called for a redefine “shower heads.” In that case, the White House can try to argue that it is abolishing what is called interpretive rules rather than a major regulation, and does not need to go through the same legal process. But experts said that just because Trump said that, the agency couldn’t argue that it was allowed to skip those steps.

“No notifications and comments may be necessary,” said Jonathan Adler, a conservative legal scholar at Case Western Reserve University. “Not because Trump orders it to be abolished, but because there’s a question of whether the only thing that’s been abolished is a definition, then whether it’s an interpretive rule.”

Some say Trump’s plan, which allows regulations to expire every five years, could make it difficult for businesses to plan for the future.

For example, the Federal Energy Regulation Commission has everything from power lines to utility accounting, said Aripescoe, director of Harvard Law School’s Electrical Law Initiative. In theory, new orders should expire regularly.

“The first section of that order talks about how businesses are sure they need,” says Lisa Heinzerling, a law professor at Georgetown University. “But the whole order is a recipe for eternal uncertainty.”

Source: www.nytimes.com

Eliminating Predatory Starfish to Safeguard Great Barrier Reef Coral

Posted on by
Reply

A diver injects vinegar into crown-of-thorns starfish as part of a culling program.

CSIRO

A culling program has successfully protected key areas of the Great Barrier Reef from voracious coral-eating starfish. Scientists who analyzed the results say efforts need to be scaled up to further protect coral reefs.

Crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) are persistent predators of almost all types of coral within Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Each starfish reaches a diameter of 1 meter and eats 10 square meters of coral reef each year.

Starfish live on coral reefs, and it is believed that increased nutrient input into reef waters due to agriculture and other human factors is increasing their numbers and exacerbating coral destruction. Between 1985 and 2012, they accounted for 40 percent of coral losses in the region.

When starfish erupted across the reef from 2012 to 2022, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority conducted a massive culling program. A team of divers injects the starfish with a single shot of vinegar or cow bile, which kills the starfish and prevents it from releasing its larvae.

Roger Beeden The Park Service and colleagues found that in areas where timely removals were carried out, outbreaks were limited and coral cover recovered and increased by up to 44%. Where no culling occurred, coral losses were severe. The study also confirmed that by preventing outbreaks on strategically important coral reefs, the larvae do not spread to other reefs on ocean currents, reducing further outbreaks.

To date, the program has focused on 500 of the marine park’s 3,000 reefs scattered throughout the park, which have significant value to the tourism industry or are home to starfish. were chosen because they are known to be important for the spread of

“The results we found in this study are the result of using integrated pest management. [the starfish] Just like managing plague locusts and other pest species, it needs to be done at the right time and on the right reef,” says Beeden.

But researchers recommend expanding the program from the current fleet of five to seven ships to 10 to 15 ships. “At any given time, about a third to a half of his 500 cases are involved in the current outbreak,” Beeden said.

Terry Hughes Researchers at James Cook University in Townsville do not agree that culling programs are worthwhile. “It is becoming increasingly clear that attempts to protect Great Barrier Reef corals by culling crown-of-thorns starfish on a few reefs are just a drop in the ocean,” he says.

Mr Hughes said geographical differences in starfish numbers and coral abundance – which the study attributed to levels of culling in different parts of the Great Barrier Reef – could be explained by which areas had suffered from recent cyclones and coral mass destruction. Events they say could be explained by who is most affected by large-scale bleaching. Professor Beeden acknowledges that it is difficult to separate these factors from the effects of selection, but he says: “Our results are strengthened and are not confounded by the fact that the increase in coral cover in the Townsville region was achieved despite two large-scale bleaching events in 2020 and 2022. do not have” “

Instead, Hughes says the priority should be to tackle global warming, which is accelerating the frequency and intensity of coral bleaching. “Each time there is a bleaching event, the Australian government announces additional funding to eliminate starfish from some coral reefs, shifting the focus away from addressing the causes of these outbreaks and reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.” he says.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com