I think it's worse than Google or WebMD because people are biased toward believing detailed (richer) information sources, esp if it's masked behind AI. You might receive vague advice from a friend or WebMD but the information is weighted against the source's trustworthiness, perceived soundness, information richness, etc. I think this oversteps alot of that for most people and people might be more inclined to believe it.

It also overlooks that research ≠ clinical practice and that translating research into practice requires numerous hurdles. There can be a decade of research and numerous publication for a drug that then collapses in clinical testing. Or misattribution, that deaths diagnosed from shaken babies syndrome are prob due to prior non-shaking related trauma. I think access to research is a good thing but stripped of context like this isn't.

I also wonder if the hallucinations increase as the pool of information shrinks. Like I'm not gonna use this if I have a common cold but if I have rare S3 colorectal cancer then I might find this useful. Cool project but medical applications are always tough.