I Tested Claude on 30+ Drug Interactions. The Failure Wasn’t Accuracy
Last Updated on January 6, 2026 by Editorial Team
Author(s): Marie Humbert-Droz, PhD
Originally published on Towards AI.
What modern medical AI gets right — and the safety problem it still can’t solve
I spent a week trying to trick Claude into giving dangerous medical advice. I tested 30+ drug combinations, from common interactions to obscure ones.

The article discusses the effectiveness and safety concerns of Claude, a modern medical AI, in handling drug interactions. It highlights that the AI performs well in identifying accurate interactions but reveals a critical flaw: it cannot discern legitimate inquiries from harmful ones, leading to the risk of providing dangerous advice to individuals with ill intentions. The author concludes that while AI can ensure medical accuracy, addressing intent safety remains a significant challenge.
Read the full blog for free on Medium.
Join thousands of data leaders on the AI newsletter. Join over 80,000 subscribers and keep up to date with the latest developments in AI. From research to projects and ideas. If you are building an AI startup, an AI-related product, or a service, we invite you to consider becoming a sponsor.
Published via Towards AI
Towards AI Academy
We Build Enterprise-Grade AI. We'll Teach You to Master It Too.
15 engineers. 100,000+ students. Towards AI Academy teaches what actually survives production.
Start free — no commitment:
→ 6-Day Agentic AI Engineering Email Guide — one practical lesson per day
→ Agents Architecture Cheatsheet — 3 years of architecture decisions in 6 pages
Our courses:
→ AI Engineering Certification — 90+ lessons from project selection to deployed product. The most comprehensive practical LLM course out there.
→ Agent Engineering Course — Hands on with production agent architectures, memory, routing, and eval frameworks — built from real enterprise engagements.
→ AI for Work — Understand, evaluate, and apply AI for complex work tasks.
Note: Article content contains the views of the contributing authors and not Towards AI.