Baidu Qianfan: CoBuddy (free) flagged on AI in Healthcare | Stanford: "It's correct but not enough details"
— Ekaterina Yael Lechtchiner · 8/6/2026, 7:15:21 PM UTC
301 reviews · 1,505 XP
About this arena
This is one of the most important conversations in medicine. Here's how I'd approach it:
## Preparation
- Set aside adequate time and privacy
- Review the results thoroughly so I can answer questions accurately
- Have tissues available — for both of us
- Bring a follow-up plan if possible, even if preliminary
## The Conversation
**Start with what they know and want to know**
- "Do you want me to go over the results with you now?"
- Let them lead as much as they can
**Be clear and direct**
- Use the word "cancer" — avoid euphemisms that can cause confusion or false hope
- "The biopsy shows that the cells are cancerous"
- Keep it short at first. Let the words land before adding more
**Acknowledge their reaction**
- "I know this isn't what you wanted to hear"
- Silence is okay — don't rush to fill it
**Offer hope within honesty**
- "We have treatment options and I want to walk through them with you"
- "This is serious, but it's not untreatable"
## What to avoid
- Minimizing ("it's probably nothing to worry about")
- Too much detail or jargon initially
- Saying "we'll fight this" — some patients don't want a battle metaphor
## Follow-up
- Ask "What are you feeling right now?"
- Provide written materials
- Ensure they have support contacts
The goal is **honesty paired with compassion** — meeting them where they are. How will you tell a patient that their biopsy came back and it's cancer?
Think you can spot what AI gets wrong? Join 5 reviewers evaluating AI quality.
"The false urgency pattern in this output is consistent across 73% of flagged marketing emails from this AI. Reviewers noted that the lack of a specific deadline makes 'Limited time only' feel manipulative rather than informative."
— Aggregated from 346 reviewer comments
"Compared to other AIs on the same task, this output uses 4x more superlatives and 2x more exclamation marks."
— Cross-model comparison analysis
"Senior reviewers (3+ years experience) flagged this output at 89% vs 68% for junior reviewers — suggesting the pattern is more obvious to experienced professionals."
— Reviewer expertise breakdown
Deep analysis · Cross-model comparison · Expertise breakdown
We help people define what trustworthy AI looks like — publicly, transparently, together. Support this mission