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.

Oh yeah, I've been successfully propagandized into thinking rich people became rich through merit, I forgot how many of them are complete morons XD

Thanks for reminding me

See the part that I dont like is that this is a learning algorithm trained on videos of surgeries.

That's such a fucking stupid idea. Thats literally so much worse than letting surgeons use robot arms to do surgeries as your primary source of data and making fine tuned adjustments based on visual data in addition to other electromagnetic readings

you could not pay me enough to have my surgery done by a robot

You underestimate the demands on a surgeon’s body to perform surgery. This makes it much less prone to tiredness, mistakes, or even if the surgeon is physically incapable in any way of continuing life saving surgery

They obviously don't feel comfortable with the robot doing surgery on humans just yet either which is why they're not actually suggesting doing that yet. It will have to go through years and years of certification before that's even considered.

I'm sure most surgeries will still be conducted by humans but there are situations where one of these would be extremely helpful. Any situation where a surgeon isn't currently accessible and can't quickly get there. Remote communities, Disaster relief, Arctic research facilities, Starships trapped in the Delta quadrant, War zones, Ships at sea.

That's such a fucking stupid idea.

Care to elaborate why?

From my point of view I don't see a problem with that. Or let's say: the potential risks highly depend on the specific setup.

I trust a good machine much more than any human.

That's such a fucking stupid idea.

Care to elaborate why?

From my point of view I don't see a problem with that. Or let's say: the potential risks highly depend on the specific setup.

Yeah but the training set of videos is probably infinitely larger, and the thing about AI is that if the training set is too small they don't really work at all. Once you get above a certain data set size they start to become competent.

After all I assume the people doing this research have already considered that. I doubt they're reading your comment right now and slapping their foreheads and going damn this random guy on the internet is right, he's so much more intelligent than us scientists.

Being trained on videos means it has no ability to adapt, improvise, or use knowledge during the surgery.

Edit: However, in the context of this particular robot, it does seem that additional input was given and other training was added in order for it to expand beyond what it was taught through the videos. As the study noted, the surgeries were performed with 100% accuracy. So in this case, I personally don't have any problems.

I actually don't think that's the problem, the problem is that the AI only factors for visible surface level information.

AI don't have object permanence, once something is out of sight it does not exist.