I'm all for machines replacing doctors, but I think it is important to remember that medical centers that make big bets on expensive machines frequently spin th

I'm all for machines replacing doctors, but I think it is important to remember that medical centers that make big bets on expensive machines frequently spin the truth to justify their purchases. 5 years ago, I was constantly being told about robot surgery and how it would make surgery safer by reducing mistakes. Hospitals that made these purchases made grand claims in an effort to attract patients. Unfortunately, the da vinci robot has continuously injured patients[1][2] while the marketing has made it so the machines continue to be installed in more hospitals as patients demand the robot surgeons. Hospitals that have purchased a da vinci machine are very unlikely to come out and say it was a waste of money and is injuring patients, it makes them look like they are fools, and increases their liability. I really hope Watson is as advanced as described in the Wired article, but there have been plenty of popular science rags that similarly pimped robots as making surgery safer. I think eventually robots will eventually make surgery safer, and watson-like computing will make better diagnoses, but there clearly was a mistake made in evaluating robots for surgery that I would rather not see made again. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-08/robot-surgery-damaging-patients-rises-with-marketing.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-08/robot-surgery-damag... [2] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304703104575173952145907526 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230470310...