AI Reading
2Like others, I found the research process for my topic a little difficult. The exact question that I was looking for was difficult to answer by one research paper, so I started with a more theoretical paper: learning medical technology and privacy. If we are to design something to serve us in the medical field, we should be educated in the risks (or lack of risk) that are there waiting for us. Furthermore, I will be using Chatpdf to first analyze the paper for me, and then I will read it again manually to see how the experience and knowledge gained is different.
The title of this paper is: “Ignore the Dangers of Hubris at Your Own Risk: Mitigating the Barrier to Trust and Respect for High-Performing Teams in Medical Technology.” The first thing I asked of Chatpdf was to give an executive summary. It replies with a focus on how this paper is about avoiding this “barrier to success” that is hubris in the workplace. It first identifies the challenges that this could bring, and then it reveals that the paper gives strategies in which we could create a “culture of humility” and “openness to feedback” instead of something detrimental.
The second question I asked the LLM was whether or not this paper is useful to read if I wanted to design a product that interacts with patients, and if so, how? Although Chatpdf primarily just repeated what it said from the summary of the article, it included a few more key points regarding how the article would help describe the importance of the human dynamics of healthcare and the significance of understanding respect between the provider and the patient.
Get Samuel Chuang’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Lastly, I asked for an example of how the article describes respect between the provider and the patient. It gave me the idea that the provider should not “overestimate their capacity to heal nor underestimate their capacity to harm.” One thing that Chatpdf provided that was helpful was a kind of in-text citation that took me to where the example could be found. The example it gave was also telling of the direction that the article is being taken (focusing a lot on the human dynamic as mentioned previously and less of a technical aspect).
Then, I actually went and read the article, and what I got out of it was a more nuanced understanding of the topic. Although the nature of the article filled it with a lot of — what I thought was — verbiage that conveyed the same things, there were definitely some interesting ideas that weren’t exactly described when Chatpdf was giving the summary of the article. For example, I learned that the main reason for this discussion was that there is an overuse of confidence in the workplace because no one likes receiving a service in which the provider is unsure of the product. However, the reality is that no one can be sure of the outcome. What the article stresses is for the provider to be more cognizant of the variety of outcomes that can result from their care — the “capacity to heal” or “capacity to harm” as was mentioned in the example.
I think using Chatpdf would be more helpful if you wanted to probe whether or not the article would be something that is useful instead of using it to completely understand the text.
