6 ms·

FTA: Inventor: "We programmed the best surgeon’s techniques, based on consensus and physics, into the machine" Third Party: “While in a technical sense, semi-

by daveguy 11y ago

FTA: Inventor: "We programmed the best surgeon’s techniques, based on consensus and physics, into the machine" Third Party: “While in a technical sense, semi-autonomous suturing is a ‘grand challenge’ problem of surgical robotics, clinically much suturing and bowel anastomosis is done by staplers which can do the whole thing in seconds,” he wrote in an email. “Clearly the task they chose does not justify the elaborate equipment they used.” So, they used machine learning to perform a limited part of a surgical procedure, but with freedom of motion and adapting to tissue changes. At the end of the article they talk about self-driving cars and how we have lane-assist and the next level is taking over. The inventor likens this technology to current lane-assist technology, but it seems more involved than that. Personally I do not want any machine learning consensus algorithm with control over a surgical procedure in my body. I think the DaVinci type systems (tele-operation, but without autonomy) are awesome -- they allow superhuman precision in delicate surgical tasks. However, until AGI is a solved problem I do not want an automated algorithm making decisions with a knife to my organs. Let the automation algorithm highlight portions of the screen or anticipate the next viewpoint, but keep it away from the controls.

JamesBarney 11y ago
I feel completely differently. As soon as someone shows me a table that says Human Surgeons Mortality Rate : 1% Computer Surgeon Mortality Rate : 0.5% I'll be sold on the automated surgeon. And I think this will happen WAY before AGI is solved.
- mdorazio 11y ago
  I'm with you. The sheer amount of human error in the medical field that causes death and injury is astounding [1], and I would gladly put my life in the hands of a capable machine instead of a fallible human if given the choice. [1] http://www.futurity.org/medical-errors-deaths-1157152/ http://www.futurity.org/medical-errors-deaths-1157152/
  - Matthias247 11y ago
    But then again the software in those machines will be written by humans and will most likely have bugs - which might influence the outcome of the operation. So the questions is whether you trust more the surgeon or the engineers of that machine.
    - xerophyte12932 11y ago
      As a software developer, I am inclined to trust the surgeon more.
      - x0054 11y ago
        How about a surgeon that's been up for 36 hours, hungry, with a splitting headachy, and some family problems on the mind. A human surgeon might be awesome and can still make a ton of mistakes for reasons unrelated to their medical abilities. Meanwhile, while a programmer could easily make a mistake, other people and tests of the code could spot a lot of mistakes that could be corrected before the system reaches its first patient.
        coredog64 11y ago
        I'm going to take a different tack: How about we stop hazing medical professionals at the beginning of their career and only ask them to work 8 hour shifts with an appropriate amount of time off until their next shift?
        lmm 11y ago
        Great idea. But how do we get to there from here? Particularly when doctors' professional bodies are large, powerful, and full of people who are convinced that that never did them any harm?
        mdorazio 11y ago
        Along with lmm's comment, where would all the extra doctors come from? You can't cut hours worked in half (or close to it) without doubling your staff to meet the demand. US hospitals (especially ERs) are already running over patient capacity in many US cities
- daveguy 11y ago
  I don't think you'll see fully automated surgery soon because most ML algorithms can too easily be fooled by unusual sensor data or unexpected states -- and these are very much AGI problems as well. Those algorithms are no where near the reliability levels required for approval as medical devices. We will have advanced assist-mechanisms (like davinci robots) long before the decision making processes are incorporated into a robot surgeon. Essentially, there won't be a "computer surgeon" for a long time and the difference between Human Surgeons using modern assist technology vs a fully computer surgeon mortality will be blurred as assistance technology improves. So there will never be a 1% vs 0.5% mortality. It will be equal mortality at best before AGI allows improvements under as many or more conditions as a human. Just my opinion of course.
  - Brakenshire 11y ago
    I would guess the automatic parts will be like a toolkit of tasks which the surgeon can delegate to an algorithm. You could imagine that an algorithm could sew skin together with a level of accuracy to prevent scarring, rejoin nerve and small blood vessels quicker and more accurately, or remove cancerous tissue tagged with a biomarker, while avoiding nerves or important structures nearby. The surgeon could put the surgery into the controlled situation that the algorithm understands, and make some over-arching decisions through a UI (for instance, he could say 'join this nerve on this side to this nerve on the other', which might be difficult for the algorithm to work out), and then the algorithm would accomplish that task, and return control back to the surgeon. More simply, a program could prevent a human surgeon using a machine like a Da Vinci from touching a nerve, or define the limits of bone removal. The latter example does already exist in clinical use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGYVhSymNN4&t=3m20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGYVhSymNN4&t=3m20s
- ludamad 11y ago
  Say you know you have a good surgeon, and you know there are certain cases computers WILL kill you. Aren't the numbers not enough?
  - azernik 11y ago
    What those numbers say are that there are cases where a good surgeon WILL kill you too.
- YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
  >> Human Surgeons Mortality Rate : 1% Computer Surgeon Mortality Rate : 0.5% That may never come. The best-performing machine learning algorithms work by optimising a measure of error. Experience says that while it's easy enough to take this error to something between 10% - 30%, it's excruciatingly difficult to push it any further down.
- gr3yh47 11y ago
  >Human Surgeons Mortality Rate : 1% Computer Surgeon Mortality Rate : 0.5% see, I'm with you WHEN that's the comparison for the particular surgeon who would be performing my procedure. Not the average of all surgeons vs the computer, since that stat is not necessarily applicable to my situation.
  - JulianMorrison 11y ago
    Actually, I'd care more about the average. You might hope the be the special snowflake who gets the heroic surgeon, but I wouldn't bet on it. Unless you are medically interesting in some way, you're likely to just get the next schmoe on the rotation.
purplelobster 11y ago
> Personally I do not want any machine learning consensus algorithm with control over a surgical procedure in my body Isn't the surgeon's brain a machine learning algorithm in physical form? Humans are more versatile today and can adapt do different situations, but I don't see this as a argument against machine learning necessarily.
visarga 11y ago
> However, until AGI is a solved problem I do not want an automated algorithm making decisions with a knife to my organs. AGI isn't yet discovered yet we allow planes to fly themselves, markets allow automated agents to spend billions and so on. What if the algorithm was proved to be 10x safer than a human expert? Even without AGI they could be better than humans.

by daveguy 11y ago

JamesBarney 11y ago

I feel completely differently. As soon as someone shows me a table that says Human Surgeons Mortality Rate : 1% Computer Surgeon Mortality Rate : 0.5% I'll be sold on the automated surgeon. And I think this will happen WAY before AGI is solved.

mdorazio 11y ago
I'm with you. The sheer amount of human error in the medical field that causes death and injury is astounding [1], and I would gladly put my life in the hands of a capable machine instead of a fallible human if given the choice. [1] http://www.futurity.org/medical-errors-deaths-1157152/ http://www.futurity.org/medical-errors-deaths-1157152/
- Matthias247 11y ago
  But then again the software in those machines will be written by humans and will most likely have bugs - which might influence the outcome of the operation. So the questions is whether you trust more the surgeon or the engineers of that machine.
  - xerophyte12932 11y ago
    As a software developer, I am inclined to trust the surgeon more.
    - x0054 11y ago
      How about a surgeon that's been up for 36 hours, hungry, with a splitting headachy, and some family problems on the mind. A human surgeon might be awesome and can still make a ton of mistakes for reasons unrelated to their medical abilities. Meanwhile, while a programmer could easily make a mistake, other people and tests of the code could spot a lot of mistakes that could be corrected before the system reaches its first patient.
      - coredog64 11y ago
        I'm going to take a different tack: How about we stop hazing medical professionals at the beginning of their career and only ask them to work 8 hour shifts with an appropriate amount of time off until their next shift?
        lmm 11y ago
        Great idea. But how do we get to there from here? Particularly when doctors' professional bodies are large, powerful, and full of people who are convinced that that never did them any harm?
        mdorazio 11y ago
        Along with lmm's comment, where would all the extra doctors come from? You can't cut hours worked in half (or close to it) without doubling your staff to meet the demand. US hospitals (especially ERs) are already running over patient capacity in many US cities
daveguy 11y ago
I don't think you'll see fully automated surgery soon because most ML algorithms can too easily be fooled by unusual sensor data or unexpected states -- and these are very much AGI problems as well. Those algorithms are no where near the reliability levels required for approval as medical devices. We will have advanced assist-mechanisms (like davinci robots) long before the decision making processes are incorporated into a robot surgeon. Essentially, there won't be a "computer surgeon" for a long time and the difference between Human Surgeons using modern assist technology vs a fully computer surgeon mortality will be blurred as assistance technology improves. So there will never be a 1% vs 0.5% mortality. It will be equal mortality at best before AGI allows improvements under as many or more conditions as a human. Just my opinion of course.
- Brakenshire 11y ago
  I would guess the automatic parts will be like a toolkit of tasks which the surgeon can delegate to an algorithm. You could imagine that an algorithm could sew skin together with a level of accuracy to prevent scarring, rejoin nerve and small blood vessels quicker and more accurately, or remove cancerous tissue tagged with a biomarker, while avoiding nerves or important structures nearby. The surgeon could put the surgery into the controlled situation that the algorithm understands, and make some over-arching decisions through a UI (for instance, he could say 'join this nerve on this side to this nerve on the other', which might be difficult for the algorithm to work out), and then the algorithm would accomplish that task, and return control back to the surgeon. More simply, a program could prevent a human surgeon using a machine like a Da Vinci from touching a nerve, or define the limits of bone removal. The latter example does already exist in clinical use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGYVhSymNN4&t=3m20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGYVhSymNN4&t=3m20s
ludamad 11y ago
Say you know you have a good surgeon, and you know there are certain cases computers WILL kill you. Aren't the numbers not enough?
- azernik 11y ago
  What those numbers say are that there are cases where a good surgeon WILL kill you too.
YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
>> Human Surgeons Mortality Rate : 1% Computer Surgeon Mortality Rate : 0.5% That may never come. The best-performing machine learning algorithms work by optimising a measure of error. Experience says that while it's easy enough to take this error to something between 10% - 30%, it's excruciatingly difficult to push it any further down.
gr3yh47 11y ago
>Human Surgeons Mortality Rate : 1% Computer Surgeon Mortality Rate : 0.5% see, I'm with you WHEN that's the comparison for the particular surgeon who would be performing my procedure. Not the average of all surgeons vs the computer, since that stat is not necessarily applicable to my situation.
- JulianMorrison 11y ago
  Actually, I'd care more about the average. You might hope the be the special snowflake who gets the heroic surgeon, but I wouldn't bet on it. Unless you are medically interesting in some way, you're likely to just get the next schmoe on the rotation.

purplelobster 11y ago

> Personally I do not want any machine learning consensus algorithm with control over a surgical procedure in my body Isn't the surgeon's brain a machine learning algorithm in physical form? Humans are more versatile today and can adapt do different situations, but I don't see this as a argument against machine learning necessarily.

visarga 11y ago

> However, until AGI is a solved problem I do not want an automated algorithm making decisions with a knife to my organs. AGI isn't yet discovered yet we allow planes to fly themselves, markets allow automated agents to spend billions and so on. What if the algorithm was proved to be 10x safer than a human expert? Even without AGI they could be better than humans.