The purpose was to skewer a grape. It was a competition. We were graded on speed and accuracy.
I have no idea how to take a screenshot on a Mac. I haven't used one since my G4 cube in middle school.
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Will doctors become obsolete?
Started by pgoyal
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
The purpose was to skewer a grape. It was a competition. We were graded on speed and accuracy.
I have no idea how to take a screenshot on a Mac. I haven't used one since my G4 cube in middle school.
4
45408
Did the robot see the grape or just feel it?
If I were you, I would keep my options open for developing new products, especially in a field like vascular, where new stents/prostheses/wires/etc are constantly being released. Most people don't have skills in different fields like you.
Both saw and felt. First it detected the outline of the grape visually and 'outlined' it. Then it centered the skewer over the grape and drove it down until there was pressure feedback (outside rind of grape). Then it entered the grape and went until it felt the second rind and then backed up half the distance between the two rinds.
I am keeping my options open 😉. That is one of the main reasons I went into Vascular. Our device reps are integrated into our conferences, meetings, ORs etc. We have a large interface with industry and a ton of opportunities to get involved on a developmental level.
You forgot lawyers.
this times a billion
Lawyers are a light year closer to being replaced by computers than doctors.
What always annoys me about technologists is their poor understanding of science. In fact - I would go as far as to say that technologists are anti-science.
Take this gem for example:
They have no clue. It's akin to listening my grandfather talk about those little-tvs-with-all-the-button (smart phone). Even reading books/blogs by Anderson, a leading technologist, makes my brain hurt because of his fundamental lack of understanding when it comes to science.
Why is it that technologists are so anti-science? Do they just not have the patience for it? Do they rely too heavily on a "technician mindset".
Take this gem for example:
They have no clue. It's akin to listening my grandfather talk about those little-tvs-with-all-the-button (smart phone). Even reading books/blogs by Anderson, a leading technologist, makes my brain hurt because of his fundamental lack of understanding when it comes to science.
Why is it that technologists are so anti-science? Do they just not have the patience for it? Do they rely too heavily on a "technician mindset".
Last edited:
http://www.mhimss.org/news/future-doctors-may-not-always-be-human
just keeping this thread updated with new links for those interested...
just keeping this thread updated with new links for those interested...
What is exactly your point of coming here and posting these type of information?
I wonder, if you are so sure that machines will take over, why are you wasting your time in a medical profession forum? I think it may be more worth your while to get involved in developing such programs that will render us obsolete.
complete and utter BULL crap. Seriously.
One of the arguments against human doctors in that bull**** article is that "50% of doctors are below average." Unacceptable! 100% of doctors must be above the average for all doctors!
The advent of Watson could have some interesting--potentially troublesome--effects on the practice of medicine. I know that the creators of Watson envision the machine in clinical practice as a powerful tool for clinicians, that it will not replace physicians. I'm skeptical though. If you look at the history of technological advances and their effects on human labor, the trend is obvious: computers have gradually displaced laborers from the workplace (just look at factory line workers, for instance).
Although machines have historically replaced people who perform menial tasks, the increasing sophistication of computers will start to replace even highly skilled workers. There's a great example of this recently. Fresh law school grads used to do all of the dirty work for firms--sifting through mountains of paperwork to find pieces of relevant information for a particular case. Now computers can perform this task far more efficiently at a fraction of the cost. The result? Decreased demand for lawyers.
Medicine isn't immune to this trend. The thing that I worry about is the combination of powerful computing and midlevel providers. There's no question right now that physicians undergo far more clinical training and receive a much more thorough education in the scientific foundation of medicine than midlevel providers. But what if use of Watson--the equivalent of Google on steroids--could bridge the gap? If you give an advanced practice nurse access to Watson, I wonder if the nurse's diagnostic acumen and potential overall knowledge of medicine will approach that of an experienced, board certified physician. That's the key question in my mind.
Surgery, I imagine, will remain quite protected from midlevel encroachment and the threat of technological displacement for many years to come. If I were a medical student these days, I would seriously consider a career in a surgical subspecialty. It really is the safest bet these days in terms of job security.
Just my $0.02
Although machines have historically replaced people who perform menial tasks, the increasing sophistication of computers will start to replace even highly skilled workers. There's a great example of this recently. Fresh law school grads used to do all of the dirty work for firms--sifting through mountains of paperwork to find pieces of relevant information for a particular case. Now computers can perform this task far more efficiently at a fraction of the cost. The result? Decreased demand for lawyers.
Medicine isn't immune to this trend. The thing that I worry about is the combination of powerful computing and midlevel providers. There's no question right now that physicians undergo far more clinical training and receive a much more thorough education in the scientific foundation of medicine than midlevel providers. But what if use of Watson--the equivalent of Google on steroids--could bridge the gap? If you give an advanced practice nurse access to Watson, I wonder if the nurse's diagnostic acumen and potential overall knowledge of medicine will approach that of an experienced, board certified physician. That's the key question in my mind.
Surgery, I imagine, will remain quite protected from midlevel encroachment and the threat of technological displacement for many years to come. If I were a medical student these days, I would seriously consider a career in a surgical subspecialty. It really is the safest bet these days in terms of job security.
Just my $0.02
Several non-skilled jobs have yet to be replaced by machines.... I thing medicine will be among the last to go. We can reliably weld on car doors with robots, but a repetitive motion machine isn't going to kick doctors out any time soon. I may see some robots in the clinic by about the time I am looking to retire, but it will very likely be those under direct physician control.
Actually there is/was a class action suit by docs concerning a major insurance company that recently settled. The carrier's computer routinely, as a matter of course, down coded ALL claims resulting lower payments to docs, Despite hours wasted dickering with call centers to no avail who stated "it was the computers fault" court found for the docs, and the " blame it on the computer" argument/excuse failed as defense for frustrating benefits.
Remember, sometimes lawyers, familiar with our unique concerns can be an asset. If any of you think you'll never be sued - think again. Most of my peers have lawyers on speed dial. Not a shocker to dwell on, just something to be tuck away in your mind. Lawyering, courts, depositions, even for academics and hospital based specialties can take you for a draining loop. Be prepared.
That's still not suing a computer, that's suing a group of people who failed to address a problem with their computer. Which basically illustrates that if computers are used in clinical contexts, there still has to be a responsible person overseeing their use who will be liable if the computer screws up. If too much stuff goes wrong, there's going to be a backlash against the use of computers in all aspects of life. A lot of people are already fairly technophobic and tend to rage at situations where they can not deal directly with a human.
I mean, we have the technology to have fast food made and served completely by robots, so why aren't there any robot fast food chains?
