A vibecoder claiming bold, unproven things, supported only by his own beliefs and claiming victory after losing his mom to cancer?
I hate the current timeline.
Based on your comment, I’m going to assume you didn’t actually read the article. Business Insider is behind a paywall. Here’s a free version: https://www.aol.com/articles/vibe-coded-ai-tool-help-091401929.html
Everything I described is grounded in documented, lived experience. A pulmonary embolism caught on Christmas, confirmed by a physician, validated at the hospital. A bleeding pattern tied to diet changes post-transfusion, caught twice, in her medical records. CAT scan errors — wrong cancer named three times — verifiable against the actual report.
I’m not claiming AI cures cancer. I’m a son who lost his mother after 76 days and used every tool available to give her the dignity of saying goodbye to her granddaughter.
I’d genuinely love to know what you believe is unproven or bold.
I did read the article. It’s only your word for any of it, though. Your medical professionals would have another thing to say (as you basically claim they’d have your mom died sooner).
Even though everything is true I would be mightily annoyed if someone turned up at my place of work telling me I wasn’t doing my work properly and rely on an AI assistant to make the kind of decisions I was trained for years to make.
In the most charitable reading this is an opinion piece, you describing your experience. In the most heinous this is a piece of creative writing to enforce the idea of LLM’s being great problem solvers that should be embraced.
I mean I don’t find fault with you trying to save your mother. But If every carer in a similar situation was to behave similarly medical care would be swamped by people with Chat GPT in hand claiming their mother would need treatment X.
In essence, if true, your story is great and a fine personal success (helped by you knowing people in the industry). But I don’t think you can fathom a world where everyone with an LLM can demand particular treatment for their loved ones based on those outcomes.
You opened by saying ‘bold and unproven.’ Now that I’ve dropped the specifics – a pulmonary embolism confirmed by a physician, bleeding patterns caught twice and documented in medical records, CAT scan errors verifiable against the actual report, you’ve shifted to a systemic argument without retracting a single one of those original accusations.
And on ‘it’s only your word for it’…I have the records. I have the reports. I have the documented errors. I don’t need to prove any of this to you, but if you’re genuinely interested I’m happy to hop on a call and walk you through the evidence firsthand.
On the systemic argument: I’ve already shared this workflow with non-technical people. No connections. No medical background. Free tools they learned overnight. And it moved the needle for them too…real stories, real outcomes. So that argument doesn’t hold.
But more fundamentally, you’re missing the point on medical professionals entirely. I’m not showing up at their workplace challenging their training. I’m talking about 10pm on a Christmas night when no one was returning calls. I’m talking about the hours between 5am and 10pm every single day when it was just me and my mom and she was dying. Doctors aren’t there in those moments. The system was never designed for constant care and that gap gets handed to family members who never planned to be caregivers and have no tools, no training, and no support.
That’s what AI filled. Not the doctor’s job. The void the system left behind.
