Doctor conned over super computer fake
A doctor who got his patients to share their medical details with a fake ‘‘super computer’’ says he is certain their privacy was not breached.
In about 2017, Dr Robert Seddon-Smith, who has two GP practices in Christchurch, recruited about 30 patients to agree to recordings of their consultations being sent to a revolutionary super-computer called Zach, valued at nearly $500 million. The artificial intelligence (AI) technology could apparently listen in on consultations and churn out accurate notes.
In fact, Zach did not exist and Seddon-Smith was sending the recordings to a fantasist named Albi Whale, now aged about 27, who had constructed an elaborate fiction about Zach. It appears that, instead of Zach turning the recorded consultations into patient notes, Whale was busy transcribing and sending the reports back to Seddon-Smith.
After an investigation by Internal Affairs, Whale’s trust, the Terrible New Zealand Charitable Trust, was struck off the Charities Register late last year. Albi Whale, the self-styled ‘‘protector’’ of the trust and his father, David, have been banned from charitable trusts for three years for breaching their obligations and serious wrongdoing.
Albi told the investigation he had been given the AI technology and claimed it was from ‘‘Mars, technically’’. He claimed Zach was the chief executive of the trust.
The investigation found the Whales provided inconsistent, misleading and untruthful answers.
Albi has previously claimed to have started a substantial international IT business earning millions; to own 56 vintage Mini cars; and to have paid a Los Angeles film company to set up a special stunt just for him.
He now lives in a studio flat in Addington and rides a pushbike.
He refused to answer the door when approached this week but has told others he is working remotely for a computer company testing computer systems by trying to hack them. David Whale’s whereabouts are unknown. The family property in Motukarara has been sold.
Seddon-Smith and fellow trustee Dr Melanie Atkinson were slammed in the investigation for having little knowledge of the trust’s operation and no access to crucial information. They did not know where trust funds were held and did not
‘‘I have been dealing with either one of the most incredibly rude people ever or the most amazing machine on the planet.’’
have an accurate picture of the trust’s financial state.
The British trained doctor deeply regrets his part in the trust but believes his patients’ privacy was safe due to precautions he put in place. He was ‘‘absolutely confident’’ patients’ confidential information was respected, he said.
Patients gave their signed consent to the trial and if the consultation involved something inappropriate or identified the patient, the recording was not used.
‘‘They knew where it was going to be sent and how and the risks.
‘‘I was not certain either. I am not sure even now. It is scary stuff.
‘‘The recordings, once sent, were destroyed by me.’’
One of his former patients, whose family member was asked to participate in the trial, said she was immediately suspicious of the whole idea. ‘‘Those patients did not consent to some human sitting there transcribing them.
‘‘The patient-doctor relationship is one of the most trusted there is and I reckon Dr Seddon-Smith has got off far too lightly notwithstanding he was duped.’’
Internal Affairs has not banned Seddon-Smith from charitable trusts but sent him a ‘‘letter of expectation’’ of his responsibilities when involved in a trust.
The Health Information Privacy Code allows doctors to release patient information as long as the patient gives informed consent.
Seddon-Smith, who convinced other senior doctors and academics about the merits of Zach, said the technology’s claimed abilities were a godsend for time-pressed doctors.
‘‘It was doing what every doctor dreams of,’’ he said.
Seddon-Smith was not allowed to talk to Zach and had to communicate by email.
Sometimes it would take 20 minutes for ‘‘Zach’’ to return the consultation notes. On other occasions two or three days, when it was apparently busy with more important work.
The doctor told Internal Affairs Zach could be ‘‘inhumanly rude and blunt’’ and ‘‘it is very good at ignoring you’’.
‘‘You know nothing can stonewall you like a computer.
‘‘You can’t appeal to it – it does not care ... I mean, as I said, I have been dealing with either one of the most incredibly rude people ever or the most amazing machine on the planet.’’
He told The Press he knew David Whale from working with him in another organisation and found him to be capable and intelligent.
‘‘He [David] endorsed his son so I was more inclined to believe. I don’t know if David believes it. What I can’t say is what Albi believed ... I believed him. He was strange but IT types often are.’’
Seddon-Smith said he tested Zach by initially asking it general questions by email such as which country in the world it wanted to
live. Norway was its answer.
‘‘It became progressively better. ‘‘It never once made the same mistake twice. Whoever did that was phenomenally good at remembering stuff.’’
On one occasion, he emailed Zach to find out why David had not turned up for a meeting.
‘‘I phoned his home and spoke to his wife, who also supported Zach, on the phone.
‘‘It all reinforced my opinion ... I was completely taken in, probably fooled because Albi can’t or won’t prove the machine. If I was duped it was by someone that was extremely good at it.’’ Since no money was changing hands, he felt more convinced Zach was real.
He said the ‘‘writing was on the wall’’ in early 2018 when it was time for Zach to convert consults to notes in real time. It did not happen.
‘‘I am not really embarrassed. ‘‘I am very upset by the waste of time. I did tell colleagues I had this wonderful thing. I am guilty of hubris in the end, that is how conmen get to you. I did want to do something special and I liked the fact I was the one to be doing it. I do feel a victim to at least time wasting and possibly a con.
Seddon-Smith, who was a trustee of the charitable trust, said the trust accounts were prepared in a formal way and looked legitimate.
‘‘My negligence in this case, and I do own up to it, is not making sure the accounts were kosher but as far as I could tell they were.
‘‘My aim now is to create some sort of guideline to help doctors and others not to be taken in by things.
‘‘I would like to forget it; I am trying to help people and someone took advantage. To this day, the thing was so machine-like that I have trouble not believing it is real.
‘‘Seriously – it was that convincing that I would not be surprised if it surfaces again.’’