Google and Johnson & Johnson Partner to Build Robots for Surgery

NoShoes

New member
Aug 15, 2013
171
0
0
Google and Johnson & Johnson Partner to Build Robots for Surgery

Because that's not creepy, right?

Medical advancements have no doubt made incredible leaps and bounds thanks to medicine's hand in hand relationship with technology. Case in point, Johnson & Johnson, makers of numerous healthcare, pharmaceutical, and beauty products, have announced a collaboration with Google to create robots that will assist with minor surgical procedures.

According to a press release issued yesterday, Johnson & Johnson aims to "put the best science, technology and surgical know-how in the hands of medical teams around the world," by partnering with Google in this endeavor.

"Robotic-assisted surgery is a type of minimally invasive surgery that uses technology to give surgeons greater control, access and accuracy during the surgical procedure while benefitting patients by minimizing trauma and scarring [and] enabling accelerated post-surgical healing."

The Life Sciences team at Google hopes to utilize sensor and imaging technology to benefit surgeons by offering up important data analytics and detailed images during surgical procedures. According to The Next Web, Google's technology would ideally "highlight blood vessels, nerves or tumor margins, [and show] relevant surgical information at the right time. Information will also be displayed in an overlay interface during operations so surgeons do not have to view multiple screens to access relevant data."

This seems like a logical pairing and a good way to take another step forward where medical advancements are concerned, but the cyberpunk in me is admittedly a little nervous. Could this be one step closer to the replacement of surgeons with robots altogether? Oh well, we've probably got at least a few more years before any sort of real robotic takeover happens, right?

Source: Johnson & Johnson [http://thenextweb.com/google/2015/03/27/google-and-johnson-johnson-team-up-to-build-surgery-assisting-robots/]

Permalink
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
This is actually extremely exciting. Eventually robots should be able to take over surgeries entirely and succeed at a much higher rate both with better precision, skill, and fewer mistakes.
 

Kenjitsuka

New member
Sep 10, 2009
3,051
0
0
"Could this be one step closer to the replacement of surgeons with robots altogether?"

Many, many things can be said about this.
For instance, that surgeons benefit HUGELY from extremely basic checklists, shown to them before starting.
Or that many, many doctors consult a GOOGLE websearch before deciding on a diagnosis/prognosis!
Or the extreme amount of (covered up) medical mistakes that ruin AND take a crazy amount of lives.

I guess this might be scary to people who know zero about what goes on behind the medical curtain, but it's a great thing.
Robots do not get fatigued, can keep perfectly still, can have many senses humans don't have, have infinite and perfect memory, learn as a cloud (muuuuch more experience than any organic being can collect in a lifetime) and can always fall back on a human if something does go wrong.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
No, its not creepy, its amazing. i remmeber many years back seeing this in some article how they used a robot for surgery as a proof of concept. now it looks like it might start being a reality. this is amazing.

A robot wont get tired

a robot wont show up to work drunk

a robot wont leave the surgery to an intern because "he has to go fishing"
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
You can't replace the human factor. Some bodies are still partially a mystery until you look inside. No human body is the same ... so instead of programming each robot to deal with every human body type that should grace a surgical theatre, it's probably still going to be cheaper to use tech-assisted surgeons with a scalpel.
 

wings012

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 7, 2011
856
307
68
Country
Malaysia
I doubt robots will replace surgeons. Our tech level for AI or automated anything is still pretty poop. It's one thing if human bodies were all the same and every procedure has no variables, but that's not the case.

Robots will probably replace/supplement the current tools that surgeons use. There might be cool things like preprogrammed commands for certain incisions and stitches.

Maybe in the future, medical courses will include robotics as part of their curriculum.
 

MonsterCrit

New member
Feb 17, 2015
594
0
0
Lightknight said:
This is actually extremely exciting. Eventually robots should be able to take over surgeries entirely and succeed at a much higher rate both with better precision, skill, and fewer mistakes.
Not likely. surgery involves a lot of on the fly decision making. Can never tell what you'll find when you cut and you can never predict how much someone will bleed.


Besides I am not comfortable with this. They are developing the ability to drive themselves and now detailed indepth knowledge of our anatomy and biological functions. Read as they know where we live, they can drive themselves to where we live and now they will know know the best and most effecient ways to kill, or just torture us.
 

Stg

New member
Jul 19, 2011
123
0
0
Strazdas said:
No, its not creepy, its amazing. i remmeber many years back seeing this in some article how they used a robot for surgery as a proof of concept. now it looks like it might start being a reality. this is amazing.

A robot wont get tired

a robot wont show up to work drunk

a robot wont leave the surgery to an intern because "he has to go fishing"
What the hell kind of doctors and surgeons have you been visiting?
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Stg said:
Strazdas said:
No, its not creepy, its amazing. i remmeber many years back seeing this in some article how they used a robot for surgery as a proof of concept. now it looks like it might start being a reality. this is amazing.

A robot wont get tired

a robot wont show up to work drunk

a robot wont leave the surgery to an intern because "he has to go fishing"
What the hell kind of doctors and surgeons have you been visiting?
welcome to eastern europe. All the good doctors have emigrated to western europe where they dont get paid minimum wage which isnt enough to live by let alone pay off the 8 year medical studies and only people who abuse the system is left.
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
Stg said:
What the hell kind of doctors and surgeons have you been visiting?
I was almost killed at birth because the bloody doctor wanted to rush the delivery to go and play golf, this was supposed to be the best doctor in NSW (Australia) at the time. Fact is their humans with their own needs and wants, they are as stupid and selfish as everyone else and I don't trust them. I however would trust a computer because it won't slack off, fail to follow procedure nor rush and do a half ass job.

As for their abilities, AI is getting bloody good at identification, they won't have issues at adapting to the differences in each person as it will identify parts rather then rely on location just like humans do. Check out the google car, it's AI identifies pedestrians, cyclists, different types of vehicles etc and respond accordingly and with better results than the average driver.

Edit: Grammar fixes.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
MonsterCrit said:
Lightknight said:
This is actually extremely exciting. Eventually robots should be able to take over surgeries entirely and succeed at a much higher rate both with better precision, skill, and fewer mistakes.
Not likely. surgery involves a lot of on the fly decision making. Can never tell what you'll find when you cut and you can never predict how much someone will bleed.
Eventually, robots will greatly exceed humans in the ability to diagnose and make immediate decisions if any surprise arises. From scanning to targeted precision the future is inevitably in the hands of robotics.

Besides I am not comfortable with this. They are developing the ability to drive themselves and now detailed indepth knowledge of our anatomy and biological functions. Read as they know where we live, they can drive themselves to where we live and now they will know know the best and most effecient ways to kill, or just torture us.
I recommend joining an Amish community. You'll likely be the last to go.

Joking aside, all of this AI uprising is a bit far fetched. The main thing that robots don't have is a motivation to harm us. An a.i. is something that learns and is interested by things the same way we are.

We are far more at risk of people programming malicious robots and using them to overtake the world than we are at being at risk of A.I. naturally being evil and thinking we are worth killing when we're the ones that created it in the first place. Destruction is often born out of need and aside from a power source and replacement parts, robots are in a decidedly better position than us and yet we already don't kill for the most part.
 

MonsterCrit

New member
Feb 17, 2015
594
0
0
Lightknight said:
Joking aside, all of this AI uprising is a bit far fetched. The main thing that robots don't have is a motivation to harm us. An a.i. is something that learns and is interested by things the same way we are.

We are far more at risk of people programming malicious robots and using them to overtake the world than we are at being at risk of A.I. naturally being evil and thinking we are worth killing when we're the ones that created it in the first place. Destruction is often born out of need and aside from a power source and replacement parts, robots are in a decidedly better position than us and yet we already don't kill for the most part.
Well, look at it this way. Was our rise to dominance as a species a simian uprising?

Nope. AI lacks motivation to hurt us but that lasts only so long as we are not an obstacle to their goal in some way. Or than killing us furthers their goal. See how that works. As for naturally evil. Do you have to be an evil person to crush an ant? No... you've likely crushed more ants today than most people do when they try.

You crush ants because... you just don't give a darned. They are of no concern.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
MonsterCrit said:
Nope. AI lacks motivation to hurt us but that lasts only so long as we are not an obstacle to their goal in some way. Or than killing us furthers their goal. See how that works.
Quick, come up with a goal the necessitates our complete removal.

As for naturally evil. Do you have to be an evil person to crush an ant? No... you've likely crushed more ants today than most people do when they try.
Evil as in being motivated to kill. Specifically aligned to where you'd prefer to kill than say, to not kill.

You crush ants because... you just don't give a darned. They are of no concern.
If they are of no concern, then why bother crushing them? Wouldn't crushing's caused by not giving a darn be moreso an act of consequence rather than a coordinated attack aimed specifically at squashing said creatures?

I just haven't seen a piece of literature convey a legitimate means of evil A.I. conquering us. It's always some dick programmer making them that way or designing them with a flaw from the start.

Then it's not even an issue of A.I. so much as the efficiency of machine in general and the ineptness of mankind comparatively.
 

MonsterCrit

New member
Feb 17, 2015
594
0
0
Lightknight said:
MonsterCrit said:
Nope. AI lacks motivation to hurt us but that lasts only so long as we are not an obstacle to their goal in some way. Or than killing us furthers their goal. See how that works.
Quick, come up with a goal the necessitates our complete removal.
We burn fossil fuels to generate energy that we need to operate. Machines too would hypothetically need this same resource. Greater access to resources is usually a common theme in human and biological conflict. Foood, water, space...


You crush ants because... you just don't give a darned. They are of no concern.
If they are of no concern, then why bother crushing them? Wouldn't crushing's caused by not giving a darn be moreso an act of consequence rather than a coordinated attack aimed specifically at squashing said creatures?
Let's put it this way. Were humans deliberately trying to eradicate the dodo from north america? Or the passenger pigeon? No. It just sort of happened. You've likely crushed no less than 20 ants today alone just because you took no active steps to avoid crushing them.

I just haven't seen a piece of literature convey a legitimate means of evil A.I. conquering us. It's always some dick programmer making them that way or designing them with a flaw from the start.
Conquering us? Probably not. Exterminating us... that would be fairly easy. An Atmospheric detonation of a Nuclear device laced with Strontium(sp) 90 would pretty much ruin humanity's day very quickly. You see. The reason you don't see so much literature is because honestly... nobody wants such literature or rather the market it is too small.

That said there have been plenty of stories that take place long after humanity has gone extinct.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
MonsterCrit said:
We burn fossil fuels to generate energy that we need to operate. Machines too would hypothetically need this same resource. Greater access to resources is usually a common theme in human and biological conflict. Foood, water, space...
Nuclear energy and solar energy. They would be invested in inventing new power methods and having us also work towards the same goal.

Energy itself isn't scarce and is entirely renewable. All you need to do is boil water.


Let's put it this way. Were humans deliberately trying to eradicate the dodo from north america? Or the passenger pigeon? No. It just sort of happened. You've likely crushed no less than 20 ants today alone just because you took no active steps to avoid crushing them.
Kinda funny timing, I did eradicate an ant hill today. 20 would be low.

The Dodo and passenger pigeons are bad examples. We ate them. We had a direct benefit for their death and were unable to anticipate their extinction at the time. Robots would (hopefully) not benefit from consuming us and if so would be able to anticipate overharvesting.

In any event, these are bad examples for "Squashing due to not caring" when the examples are due to motivated hunting.

Conquering us? Probably not. Exterminating us... that would be fairly easy. An Atmospheric detonation of a Nuclear device laced with Strontium(sp) 90 would pretty much ruin humanity's day very quickly. You see. The reason you don't see so much literature is because honestly... nobody wants such literature or rather the market it is too small.

That said there have been plenty of stories that take place long after humanity has gone extinct.
But, and I can't preface this enough, why would they?

It's the motivation of the matter. A.I. need motivation too.
 

MonsterCrit

New member
Feb 17, 2015
594
0
0
Lightknight said:
But, and I can't preface this enough, why would they?

It's the motivation of the matter. A.I. need motivation too.
Let's turn the question around... Why wouldn't they?

Remember... the quirk of true sapient intelligence is that it is quite random. Ideas form and vanish thousands of times per second that's part of what allows for intelligence to happen. Problem is any sort of idea can come up. Again it boils down to.. what's stopping them?

You mention energy not being scarce but just needing to boil water... I'll let you figure where the energy to boil that water comes from. Granted nuclear energy is feasible but therin the dilema... what to do with the waste product. Heck that would more or less one way AI could incidentally extinct humanity. See radiation... not really an issue for machines... well.. it can be but the levels at which it becomes a problem for them is far higher than it becomes for us. WHat do they care about contaminated ground water? They don't drink it. What do they care about contaminated soil... or carcinogens...they don't get cancer. We however do. And that's where the first disjunct is.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
MonsterCrit said:
Lightknight said:
But, and I can't preface this enough, why would they?

It's the motivation of the matter. A.I. need motivation too.
Let's turn the question around... Why wouldn't they?

Remember... the quirk of true sapient intelligence is that it is quite random. Ideas form and vanish thousands of times per second that's part of what allows for intelligence to happen. Problem is any sort of idea can come up. Again it boils down to.. what's stopping them?
What's stopping us? The fun thing that comes with sentience is the ability to be persuaded and to potentially learn traits like desiring group acceptance and succumbing to peer pressure.

You mention energy not being scarce but just needing to boil water... I'll let you figure where the energy to boil that water comes from. Granted nuclear energy is feasible but therin the dilema... what to do with the waste product.
Doesn't stop us from using it at all. We just pick a place far enough away from people and dump it there.

Heck that would more or less one way AI could incidentally extinct humanity. See radiation... not really an issue for machines... well.. it can be but the levels at which it becomes a problem for them is far higher than it becomes for us.
Ionizing radiation. It causes soft errors at relatively low levels that renders the typical computer unusable. They're called soft errors because it doesn't do permanent damage to the hardware. At the "high" levels you're referring to it starts to damage the hardware itself permanently.

So it would not be in their best interest to generate nuclear energy without containment. Not only that but a failure to control nuclear energy is basically a failure to generate energy. So even if they solved self-preservation aspects of nuclear energy you've still got to consider that the most efficient method of generating the energy also involves containing the radiation at safe levels. What's more is that unshielded nuclear facilities create a fun feature known as fallout which should not only impact computers but ruining the environment may also be deemed as creating a harsher environment for the machines in general.

WHat do they care about contaminated ground water? They don't drink it. What do they care about contaminated soil... or carcinogens...they don't get cancer. We however do. And that's where the first disjunct is.
As I stated before, we don't have anything close to a shortage of energy. In order for them to try and produce a massive amount of energy, they would have to demand more energy.

I'm not even sure they wouldn't prefer the solar route so as not to rely on us at all.