Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT often exhibit Type 1 thinking—fast, intuitive reasoning that relies on familiar patterns—which can be dangerously simplistic in complex medical or ethical scenarios requiring more deliberate analysis. In our recent explorations, we observed that LLMs frequently default to well-known answers, failing to recognize nuances or twists in presented situations. For instance, when faced with modified versions of the classic “Surgeon’s Dilemma” or medical ethics cases where typical dilemmas were resolved, LLMs still reverted to standard responses, overlooking critical details. Even models designed for enhanced analytical reasoning, such as ChatGPT-o1, did not consistently overcome these limitations. This suggests that despite advancements toward fostering Type 2 thinking, LLMs remain heavily influenced by familiar patterns ingrained during training. As LLMs are increasingly integrated into clinical practice, it is crucial to acknowledge and address these shortcomings to ensure reliable and contextually appropriate AI assistance in medical decision-making.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
