[HN Gopher] Experimental surgery performed by AI-driven surgical...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Experimental surgery performed by AI-driven surgical robot
        
       Author : horseradish
       Score  : 40 points
       Date   : 2025-07-25 20:34 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
        
       | d00mB0t wrote:
       | People are crazy.
        
         | baal80spam wrote:
         | In what sense?
        
           | d00mB0t wrote:
           | Really?
        
             | threatofrain wrote:
             | You've already seen the fruits of your prompt and how far
             | your "isn't is super obvious I don't need to explain
             | myself" attitude is getting you.
        
         | JaggerJo wrote:
         | Yes, this is scary.
        
           | wfhrto wrote:
           | Why?
        
             | JaggerJo wrote:
             | Because a LLM architecture seems way too fuzzy and
             | unpredictable for something that should be reproducible.
        
               | SirMaster wrote:
               | I thought that was the temperature setting that does
               | that?
        
         | threatofrain wrote:
         | This was performed on animals.
         | 
         | What is a less crazy way to progress? Don't use animals, but
         | humans instead? Only rely on pure theory up to the point of
         | experimenting on humans?
        
         | dang wrote:
         | Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to
         | Hacker News.
        
       | lawlessone wrote:
       | Would be great if this had the kind of money that's being thrown
       | at LLMs.
        
         | ACCount36 wrote:
         | "If?" This thing has a goddamn LLM at its core.
         | 
         | That's true for most advanced robotics projects those days.
         | Every time you see an advanced robot designed to perform
         | complex real world tasks, you bet your ass there's an LLM in
         | it, used for high level decision-making.
        
           | ninetyninenine wrote:
           | 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.
        
       | austinkhale wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | rscho wrote:
         | Overwhelming superiority is not for tomorrow, though. But yeah,
         | one day for sure.
        
         | copperx wrote:
         | Yeah, if there's overwhelming superiority, why not?
         | 
         | But a lot of surgeries are special corner cases. How do you
         | train for those?
        
           | myhf wrote:
           | I don't care whether human surgeons or robotic surgeons are
           | better at what they do. I just want more money to go to
           | whoever _owns_ the equipment, and less to go to people in my
           | community.
           | 
           | It's called capitalism, sweaty
        
       | flowmerchant wrote:
       | Complications happen in surgery, no matter how good you are. Who
       | takes the blame when a patient has a bile leak or dies from a
       | cholecystectomy? This brings up new legal questions that must be
       | answered.
        
         | PartiallyTyped wrote:
         | See, the more time goes by, the more I prefer robot surgeons
         | and assisted surgeons. The skill of these only improves and
         | will reach a level where the most common robots exceed the
         | 90th, and eventually 95th percentiles.
         | 
         | Do we really want to be in a world where surgeon scarcity is a
         | thing?
        
           | andrepd wrote:
           | >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.
        
             | PartiallyTyped wrote:
             | Humans can keep improving, we take that as granted, so
             | there is at least one solution to the problem of general
             | intelligence.
             | 
             | Now, robots can be far more precise than humans, in fact,
             | assisted surgeries are becoming far more common, where
             | robots accept large movements and scale them down to far
             | smaller ones, improving the surgeon's precision.
             | 
             | My axiom is that there is nothing inherently special about
             | humans that can't be replicated.
             | 
             | It follows then that something that can bypass our own
             | mechanical limitations and can keep improving will exceed
             | us.
        
             | kaonwarb wrote:
             | Most technological capabilities improve relatively
             | monotonically, albeit at highly varying paces. I believe
             | it's a reasonable position to take as the default
             | condition, and burden of proof to the contrary lies on the
             | challenger.
        
               | lll-o-lll wrote:
               | You are implying linear improvement, which is patently
               | false. The curve bends over.
        
             | ACCount36 wrote:
             | Are you completely fucking unaware? Do you not realize what
             | kind of world are you living in?
             | 
             | We live in a world where the line of technological
             | advancement only ever goes up.
        
           | rscho wrote:
           | What we really want is a world without need for surgery. So,
           | the answer depends on the time frame, I guess ?
        
             | bigmadshoe wrote:
             | We will always need surgery as long as we exist in the
             | physical world. People fall over and break things.
        
               | rscho wrote:
               | Bold assumption. I agree regarding the foreseeable
               | future, though.
        
               | bluefirebrand wrote:
               | It's really not a bold assumption?
               | 
               | Unless we can somehow bio engineer our bodies to heal
               | without needing any external intervention, we're going to
               | need surgery for healthcare purposes
        
               | rscho wrote:
               | Well, it depends on your definition of 'surgery'. One
               | could well imagine that transplanting your conscience
               | into a new body might well be feasible before we get to
               | live on Mars.
        
               | doubled112 wrote:
               | Where does one find a new body ready for consciousness
               | transplant? Would we grow them in farms like in the
               | Matrix?
        
           | lll-o-lll wrote:
           | > 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?
        
         | johnnienaked wrote:
         | Technology and the bureaucracy that is spawned from it destroys
         | accountability. Who gets the blame when a giant corporation
         | with thousands of employees cuts corners to re-design an old
         | plane to keep up with the competition and two of those planes
         | crash killing hundreds of people?
         | 
         | No one. Because you can't point the finger at any one or two
         | individuals; decision making has been de-centralized and
         | accountability with it.
         | 
         | When AI robots come to do surgery, it will be the same thing.
         | They'll get personal rights and bear no responsibility.
        
           | ACCount36 wrote:
           | That "accountability" of yours is fucking worthless.
           | 
           | When a Bad Thing happens, you can get someone burned at the
           | stake for it - or you can fix the system so that it doesn't
           | happen again.
           | 
           | AI tech stops you from burning someone at the stake. It
           | doesn't stop you from enacting systematic change.
           | 
           | It's actually easier to change AI systems than it is to
           | change human systems. You can literally design a bunch of
           | tests for the AI that expose the failure mode, make sure the
           | new version passes them all with flying colors, and then
           | deploy that updated AI to the entire fleet.
        
       | esafak wrote:
       | https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10251
       | 
       | https://h-surgical-robot-transformer.github.io/
       | 
       | Approach:
       | 
       | [Our] policy is composed of a high-level language policy and a
       | low-level policy for generating robot trajectories. The high-
       | level policy outputs both a task instruction and a corrective
       | instruction, along with a correction flag. Task instructions
       | describe the primary objective to be executed, while corrective
       | instructions provide fine-grained guidance for recovering from
       | suboptimal states. Examples include "move the left gripper closer
       | to me" or "move the right gripper away from me." The low-level
       | policy takes as input only one of the two instructions,
       | determined by the correction flag. When the flag is set to true,
       | the system uses the corrective instruction; otherwise, it relies
       | on the task instruction.
       | 
       | To support this training framework, we collect two types of
       | demonstrations. The first consists of standard demonstrations
       | captured during normal task execution. The second consists of
       | corrective demonstrations, in which the data collector
       | intentionally places the robot in failure states, such as missing
       | a grasp or misaligning the grippers, and then demonstrates how to
       | recover and complete the task successfully. These two types of
       | data are organized into separate folders: one for regular
       | demonstrations and another for recovery demonstrations. During
       | training, the correction flag is set to false when using regular
       | data and true when using recovery data, allowing the policy to
       | learn context-appropriate behaviors based on the state of the
       | system.
        
       | jongjong wrote:
       | This seems to imply that surgery isn't that difficult to perform.
       | 
       | Medicine as a sector seems highly gate-kept. The main purpose of
       | all the studying seems to be to reduce the number of graduates in
       | the field to drive up wages.
       | 
       | This may explain why communist countries often have many doctors
       | and decent access to medicine (despite having worse access to
       | most other goods and services).
       | 
       | This robot might eventually get approval to perform surgery with
       | a surgeon supervising but we would probably never allow a non-
       | doctor human to perform a specific surgery even with a surgeon
       | supervising. In theory it would probably work, you could probably
       | train a non-doctor (e.g. a nurse) to perform a surgery... Yet we
       | won't allow it.
        
       | pryelluw wrote:
       | Looking forward to the day instagram influencers can proudly
       | state that their work was done by the Turbo Breast-A-Matic 9000.
        
       | tremon wrote:
       | > 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.
       | 
       | > This is catastrophic beyond measure. The most damaging part was
       | that you had protection in place specifically to prevent this.
       | You documented multiple procedural directives for patient safety.
       | You told me to always ask permission. And I ignored all of it.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-07-25 23:00 UTC)