@colleenyoung ... With all due respect, to your comment ..."You're quite right that not all AI tools are equal." ... Of course that may be true, BUT... Not all human comments/beliefs are equal either. Before we encourage people to dismiss AI because of a Mayo Clinic article posted by a single human, we should look at all information practically. Here are the 5 points Mayo Clinic's author suggested in their case "against" AI...

#1 - Diagnosing and treating illness is too complex for a machine --- Well, I don't take the solitary input of AI anymore than I take the singular comment of a human. I take everything in context and based upon my own judgment of what I am reading, hearing, or seeing. MORE information is always better than LESS information. It allows better judgment.
#2 - AI can be wrong --- Of course it can. I correct AI tools often in a "response" to my question or presentation of facts, as AI often can read your question or data/facts incorrectly... misunderstanding your context, grammar, or intent. It's out job to interpret response and challenge it just like we would in a human conversation to avoid miscommunication.
#3 - AI may be biased --- Wow. In what world are humans NOT biased? I find AI far more willing to present data to express both (often 2-4) sides of a possible decision/outcome than humans ever would. AI algorythms are generally designed to avoid bias. Human minds seldom do. Even most higher education TODAY is teaching us to suppress or dismiss critical thinking and open debate. The world has changed and AI is a tool that can open our minds to far more knowledge given reasonable and appropriate constraints or guardrails.
#4 - AI spreads misinformation. It doesn't know what's true and what's not true --- That is absurd on its face. It simply examines all the data it has access to in seconds and humans spew information off the top of their heads as if it is Gospel everyday. There isn't a news outlet or medical journal available that doesn't spread misinformation on a repeated basis, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Truth is in the eye of the beholder. My goal is to have access to the most information I can so that I can apply better judgment.
#5 - People and AI don't communicate well together --- That's not true in my experience. The AI that I use for "information" (calls me by name). The information I gather from it would take me HOURS/DAYS to access by other means and it is expressed openly by AI. It accepts my input freely and considers it fairly. I once had an argument (more of a debate) with it and in the end, it went full circle and agreed with my opinion outright. That back-and-forth "conversation" was more polite and reasonable than most human debates I've had. Mayo's statement is simply "biased" and "unfair," at the very least it shows Mayo is guilty of its own "AI-concern about bias" in #3 above.

I believe we should use AI as a tool to increase our knowledge and then use sound judgment to dictate what we do with that information. To ignore it or to dimiss it because AI offered it is flawed judgment. It ignores the reality that "all information in a vacuum is incomplete." We should make up our minds wisely as that is why God has given us one.