In work led by Johns Hopkins researchers, the robot performed unflappably across trials and with the expertise of a skilled human surgeon, even during unexpected scenarios typical in real life medical emergencies
A robot trained on videos of surgeries performed a lengthy phase of a gallbladder removal without human help. The robot operated for the first time on a lifelike patient, and during the operation, responded to and learned from voice commands from the team—like a novice surgeon working with a mentor.
The robot performed unflappably across trials and with the expertise of a skilled human surgeon, even during unexpected scenarios typical in real life medical emergencies.
I assume my insides are pretty much like everyone else's. I feel like if there was that much of a complication it would have been pretty obvious before the procedure started.
"Hey this guy had two heads, I'm sure the AI will work it out."
At some point in a not very distant future, you will probably be better off with the robot/AI. As it will have wider knowledge of how to handle fringe cases than a human surgeon.
We are not there yet, but maybe in 10 years or maybe 20?
I'd bet on at least twenty years before it's in general use, since this is a radical change and it makes sense to be cautious about new technology in medicine. Initial clinical trials for some common, simple surgeries within ten years, though.
This is one of those cases where an algorithm carefully trained on only relevant data can have value. It isn't the same as feeding an LLM the unfiltered Internet and then expecting it to learn only from the non-crazy parts.
The idea that a carefully curated data set may yield better results seems to be something that even the likes of Google engineers can't get their heads around.
Just a hunch, since technological advancements seem to hit the public realm much faster in places like China, in the cities especially. I don't know what the laws are like there, but I've heard rumors that there is less government regulations for technologies that can benefit the general public, like drones and automated metros. Oh yeah, and how could I forget about the robots they show off at conventions, to take the place of receptionists and other customer-facing positions.
I work with of those shiny tech companies from China. Believe me the shiny part is on the surface only. The more you look under the hood, the more it’s getting poor. With Chinese tech the problems start when you have it. European companies before you have it. US companies when you have no scale.
Regarding Chinese regulations, you simply drill it down to: for the Government a human live is not worth much. Because „we are so many“
The AI will (probably) be familiar with every possible issue that no human will be able to match.
I'm not sure what kind of "completely unexpected" situation is possible can happen, that a normal surgeon would handle better?
But I agree it would have to be a lot smarter than current LLM and self driving for instance. Like a whole other level of smarter. But I think that is where we are heading.
The idea should be to augment healthcare professionals with tools they can use. The hospital will need to have contingencies in place. I agree if that your point is that we can’t replace people with machines. But we can increase effectiveness with them.
I think you make a mistake of thinking that our collective body of knowledge is exhaustive. We discover new things all the time. Until we know everything (i.e. never), there will be gaps that AI will not be able to accommodate.
I doubt it. It simply would be enough, if the AI could understand and say when it reaches its limits and hand over to a human. But that is even hard for humans as Dunning & Kruger discovered.
The main issue with any computer is that they can't adapt to new situations. We can infer and work through new problems. The more variables the more "new" problems. The problem with biology is there isn't really any hard set rules, there are almost always exceptions. The amount of functional memory and computing power is ridiculous for a computer. Driving works mostly because there are straightforward rules.
I wonder how doctors could compare this simulation to a real surgery. I’m willing to bet it’s “realistic and lifelike” in the way a 4D movie is.
Biological creatures don’t follow perfect patterns you have all sorts of unexpected things happen. I was just reading an article about someone whose entire organs are mirrored from the average person.
The article mentions that previously they used pig cadavers with dyes and specially marked tissues to guide the robot. While it doesn't specify exactly what the "lifelike patient" is, to me the article reads like they're still using a pig cadaver just without those aids.