OpenAI Clarifies Use of ChatGPT for Professional Advice

Recent updates to OpenAI's usage policies have sparked a widespread discussion about the appropriate use of ChatGPT for medical and legal advice. The central point of clarification seems to distinguish between personal inquiry and building commercial services that dispense this type of high-stakes information.

Personal Use vs. Building a Service

The initial interpretation of the policy change suggests it is not a ban on individuals asking ChatGPT about medical or legal topics. Instead, the focus is on preventing companies from building applications on top of ChatGPT that provide automated advice to others. For instance, a healthcare company like Epic could not embed ChatGPT into its electronic health record system to interpret patient forms and offer diagnoses. However, an individual can still ask the model questions for their own understanding. This move is seen by many as a reasonable step to prevent the misuse of the technology by third parties who might repackage AI-generated responses as professional advice, which could be considered deceptive.

Unpacking the Official Terms

To clear up confusion, a look at OpenAI’s unified Terms of Use for its APIs and ChatGPT provides direct insight. The key passage states: “You must not use any Output relating to a person for any purpose that could have a legal or material impact on that person, such as making credit, educational, employment, housing, insurance, legal, medical, or other important decisions about them.” The crucial word here is “decisions.” The policy appears aimed at preventing the automation of high-impact judgments that require human agency, such as grading essays, filtering resumes, or approving loans. The goal is to ensure a licensed professional remains in the driver's seat, using the AI as a tool while taking ultimate responsibility.

The Liability Angle

Many believe this clarification is primarily a strategic move by OpenAI to avoid liability. As language models become more convincingly authoritative, the risk of being held accountable for harmful advice grows. By explicitly forbidding the use of its models for making critical decisions about others, OpenAI covers its legal bases. This policy shifts the responsibility to the user or the developer building on the platform. Some speculate this could also be a business strategy, paving the way for future enterprise-level, certified versions of ChatGPT for specific industries like medicine (“HippocraticGPT”) or law, which would come at a premium price.

The User Experience: A Double-Edged Sword

Users have shared a wide range of experiences with ChatGPT in high-stakes domains. Some report life-changing benefits, with one user claiming the LLM helped save their life by identifying stroke symptoms. Another shared how ChatGPT correctly suggested a rare congenital condition affecting their child, something multiple doctors had missed. On the other hand, many warn of the dangers. The model can be confidently wrong, offering dangerous advice on topics from construction—like filling drainage pipes with sand—to woodworking. A particularly concerning area is mental health, where users self-diagnose based on the AI's agreeable and sycophantic nature, which can confirm biases and lead to harmful outcomes without the critical pushback a real therapist would provide.

A Tool for Professionals, Not a Replacement

The debate also covers how licensed professionals can and should use these tools. Some see ChatGPT as a powerful assistant that can summarize patient visits, draft notes, or help a doctor get up to speed on treatments for rare diseases. In this model, the AI augments the professional's workflow, making their care more efficient. However, the reliability of the tool is a major concern. If the AI misses a critical document or hallucinates information, the consequences could be catastrophic. Professionals using the tool must still perform the same level of due diligence, verifying every piece of output, which raises questions about how much time is actually saved.

The Future of AI-Powered Advice

Ultimately, OpenAI's policy clarification reflects a broader reality check on the current capabilities and risks of AI. While these models are powerful informational and brainstorming tools, they are not yet reliable enough to replace licensed experts. The consensus is that when using an LLM for important matters, the output should be treated as a starting point for discussion with a qualified professional. The move by OpenAI is seen as a necessary step to manage risk, set user expectations, and potentially build a foundation for more specialized and regulated AI products in the future.