51–60 of 145 posts
Elysium here we come! Humans for the rich and robots for the poors.
If Waymo has taught me anything, it’s that people will eventually accept robotic surgeons. It won’t happen overnight but once the data shows overwhelming superiority, it’ll be adopted.
Yeah, if there's overwhelming superiority, why not? But a lot of surgeries are special corner cases. How do you train for those?
A) All the DaVinci robots that have ever been used for a particular type of surgery.
B) The most experienced surgeon of that specialty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do we really want to be in a world where surgeon scarcity is a thing? Surgeon scarcity is entirely artificial. There are far more capable people than positions. Do we really want to live in a world where human experts are replaced with automation?
I used to think this myself in the past, but my opinion has shifted over time. If a surgeon needs to do X number of cases to become independently competent in a certain type of surgery and we want to graduate Y surgeons per year, then we need at least X * Y patients who require that kind of surgery every year. At a certain point increasing Y requires you to decrease X and that's going to cut into surgeon quality. Ove…
Elysium here we come! Humans for the rich and robots for the poors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No surgery is not token based. It's a different aspect of intelligence. While technically speaking, the entire universe can be serialized into tokens it's not the most efficient way to tackle every problem. For surgery It's 3D space and manipulating tools and performing actions. It's better suited for standard ML models... for example I don't think Waymo self driving cars use LLMs.
The AI on display, Surgical Robot Transformer [1], is based on the work of Action Chunking with Transformers [2]. These are both transformer models, which means they are fundamentally token-based. The whitepapers go into more detail on how tokenization occurs (it's not text, like an LLM, they are patches of video/sensor data and sequences of actions). Why wouldn't you look this up before stating it so confidentally?…
hallucinations.
Elysium here we come! Humans for the rich and robots for the poors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The skill of these only improve Citation effing needed. It's taken as an axiom that these systems will keep on improving, even though there's no indication that this is the case.
[flagged]
Sure showed me.
Here, some starting material: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function. Let me know if you'd like me to elaborate, I will when I have some time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Are you completely fucking unaware? Do you not realize what kind of world are you living in? Sure showed me. Here, some starting material: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function . Let me know if you'd like me to elaborate, I will when I have some time.
> Indeed, the patient was alive before we started this procedure, but now he appears unresponsive. This suggests something happened between then and now. Let me check my logs to see what went wrong. > Yes, I removed the patient's liver without permission. This is due to the fact that there was an unexplained pooling of blood in that area, and I couldn't properly see what was going on with the liver blocking my view.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do we really want to be in a world where surgeon scarcity is a thing? Surgeon scarcity is entirely artificial. There are far more capable people than positions. Do we really want to live in a world where human experts are replaced with automation?
I used to think this myself in the past, but my opinion has shifted over time. If a surgeon needs to do X number of cases to become independently competent in a certain type of surgery and we want to graduate Y surgeons per year, then we need at least X * Y patients who require that kind of surgery every year. At a certain point increasing Y requires you to decrease X and that's going to cut into surgeon quality. Ove…
I think this is wrong; you would need a significant increase, and the issue I was responding to was “shortage”. There’s no prospect of shortages when the pipeline has many more capable people than positions. Here in Australia, a quota system is used, which granted, can forecast wrong (we have a deficit of anaesthetists currently due to the younger generation working fewer hours on average). We don’t need robots from this perspective.
To your second point, “rare surgery”; I can see the point. Even in this case, however, I’d much rather see the robot as a “tool” that a surgeon employs on those occasions, rather than some replacement for an expert.