will computer partially replace primary care physicians?

[Mighty Molar]

I am looking forward to those - I don't find driving particularly enjoyable - imagine taking a long trip by car when you can actually sleep or study etc. Ha!

 

me too! I will buy an auto-driving car as soon as it becomes available (and legalized)

 

I guess, by then, lots of taxi drivers would be out of job since we will also have auto-drive taxi

 

Also, how do you distinguish yourself from having a certain illness where the odds are 70% while the other is 65%? How do you pick up on rare symptoms? Who's going to take liability for these decisions? A 90k'year NP?

 

you forget 'bout the human errors cause by physicians ; and are you sure/confident that human can differentiate the illness where the odds are really that close?

[medigeek]

me too! I will buy an auto-driving car as soon as it becomes available (and legalized)

 

I guess, by then, lots of taxi drivers would be out of job since we will also have auto-drive taxi

 

 

 

you forget 'bout the human errors cause by physicians ; and are you sure/confident that human can differentiate the illness where the odds are really that close?

 

How do you have an auto-drive taxi whilst ensuring everyone pays? Does the door lock shut if the payment system doesn't work suddenly?

 

And no, but an NP/PA is much less likely to be able to differentiate the odds than an MD.

 

Generally speaking though, the more specialized you become... the better your odds of staying away from "attack

from technology and mid providers.

 

 

ha don't count on that - some newer autotracking suturing systems are coming online now that make somethings more accurate. We have real time image tracking and robotic surgery. A lot of the tools you would need are already there. I think surgery is actually one of the ones that would be more likely to be replaced over some of the other fields (of course not tomorrow though).

 

The point is no one would be replaced in the near future - only that their jobs would have parts taken over etc, etc eventually leading to more and more automation.

 

As for the economy - as a thought exercise I have to say where do you think all the tech is leading to? What is the end point of technology as it were. I always think that is an interesting question.

 

Robotic surgery is managed by a surgeon directly though. And given how in-depth many surgeries can be, and often times requiring decision making, that makes it kinda hard to fully automate a surgery (well at least the main part of it ).

 

Lots of technology is currently available that can replace A LOT of jobs. But to actually use this technology to do so, will quickly send us into a recession.

 

I'm not really use where this technology is leading to, but to actually use it in the job market, would certainly hurt us economically. Labour jobs? AI and robots can easily do that. Analytical jobs? Well if you're diagnosing off AI, you can pretty much replace any analytical job.

 

There aren't many jobs which can't be replaced.

[NLengr]

ha don't count on that - some newer autotracking suturing systems are coming online now that make somethings more accurate. We have real time image tracking and robotic surgery.

 

As was said previously, robotic surgery is a huge overstatement. It's better described as remotely controlled laparoscopy or something along those lines. Every single movement or view by the instruments is directly tracking the surgeon. There is no activity that is not directly following the surgeons hand/foot inputs.

 

It's like saying your TV changes channels and selects what you watchby itself, when in reality the viewer is manipulating the remote and doing 100% of the thinking.

 

Unfortunately the public sometimes gets confused and thinks the robot is like a robot arm at a ford plant rather than their TV remote.

[medigeek]

As was said previously, robotic surgery is a huge overstatement. It's better described as remotely controlled laparoscopy or something along those lines. Every single movement or view by the instruments is directly tracking the surgeon. There is no activity that is not directly following the surgeons hand/foot inputs.

 

It's like saying your TV changes channels and selects what you watchby itself, when in reality the viewer is manipulating the remote and doing 100% of the thinking.

 

Unfortunately the public sometimes gets confused and thinks the robot is like a robot arm at a ford plant rather than their TV remote.

 

Exactly what I've meant to say.

 

Even with robotic surgery (surgeon controlling a robot), what if surgeons on the whole refuse to pursue this path for the majority of their surgeries?

 

Either way, can't see how it would impact the job market. If anything, it would cut down on an assistant or OR nurse (at the most). But you still need one surgeon per robot...

[rmorelan]

Robotic surgery is managed by a surgeon directly though. And given how in-depth many surgeries can be, and often times requiring decision making, that makes it kinda hard to fully automate a surgery (well at least the main part of it ).

 

Lots of technology is currently available that can replace A LOT of jobs. But to actually use this technology to do so, will quickly send us into a recession.

 

I'm not really use where this technology is leading to, but to actually use it in the job market, would certainly hurt us economically. Labour jobs? AI and robots can easily do that. Analytical jobs? Well if you're diagnosing off AI, you can pretty much replace any analytical job.

 

There aren't many jobs which can't be replaced.

 

Oh yeah of course there is a surgeon - I was just saying that before you can even start to replace a surgeon you need to have all the tools lying around that can replace their "hands" as it were. With some of the robotic stuff coming online you have that. That means someone could actually start thinking about programming a system

 

Ultimately the entire point of technology some think would be to basically remove the direct need for all labour. Coupled with advances in 3D printing - basically micro-manufacturing (arguably the first attempt at getting a replicator going to use a star trek term I guess) - then yeah the economy is going to take a hit. -While I am at it there is a reason there are no money in a lot of science fiction stories set in the future. It isn't because it is some sort of utopia but rather technology may make our sort of economic system kind of useless (as other economic systems have been rendered useless in the past). What is the point of buying a lot of things when you can just create want ever you want automatically.

[TheBoss]

Robotic surgery is managed by a surgeon directly though. And given how in-depth many surgeries can be, and often times requiring decision making, that makes it kinda hard to fully automate a surgery (well at least the main part of it ).

 

Lots of technology is currently available that can replace A LOT of jobs. But to actually use this technology to do so, will quickly send us into a recession.

 

I'm not really use where this technology is leading to, but to actually use it in the job market, would certainly hurt us economically. Labour jobs? AI and robots can easily do that. Analytical jobs? Well if you're diagnosing off AI, you can pretty much replace any analytical job.

 

There aren't many jobs which can't be replaced.

You don't understand economics. Short answer: no.

 

An an analogy, back in the day "Oh no! Automation will eliminate all our factory jobs, what are we going to do?!" Essentially, we end shifting the labour market, while still getting the benefits the factory jobs used to get us, only at much lower cost.

[thebouque]

You don't understand economics. Short answer: no.

 

An an analogy, back in the day "Oh no! Automation will eliminate all our factory jobs, what are we going to do?!" Essentially, we end shifting the labour market, while still getting the benefits the factory jobs used to get us, only at much lower cost.

 

Hey watch your attitude.

[rmorelan]

You don't understand economics. Short answer: no.

 

An an analogy, back in the day "Oh no! Automation will eliminate all our factory jobs, what are we going to do?!" Essentially, we end shifting the labour market, while still getting the benefits the factory jobs used to get us, only at much lower cost.

 

Ok but take that to the extreme - all factory labour and say agriculture are basically gone. You automate mining, forestry..... Eventually the rewards from work fall and people shift preferences towards leisure - that is what is supposed to happen after all if you believe the models

[TheBoss]

Ok but take that to the extreme - all factory labour and say agriculture are basically gone. You automate mining, forestry..... Eventually the rewards from work fall and people shift preferences towards leisure - that is what is supposed to happen after all if you believe the models

 

Models or not, high economic output and prosperity, regardless of time spent working, does not constitute a recession

[medigeek]

Oh yeah of course there is a surgeon - I was just saying that before you can even start to replace a surgeon you need to have all the tools lying around that can replace their "hands" as it were. With some of the robotic stuff coming online you have that. That means someone could actually start thinking about programming a system

 

Ultimately the entire point of technology some think would be to basically remove the direct need for all labour. Coupled with advances in 3D printing - basically micro-manufacturing (arguably the first attempt at getting a replicator going to use a star trek term I guess) - then yeah the economy is going to take a hit. -While I am at it there is a reason there are no money in a lot of science fiction stories set in the future. It isn't because it is some sort of utopia but rather technology may make our sort of economic system kind of useless (as other economic systems have been rendered useless in the past). What is the point of buying a lot of things when you can just create want ever you want automatically.

 

Yea but how do you program a robot to remove a tumour and who is seriously going to trust that? Would you trust a plane without a pilot? Even with all the technology there, you still need someone there. In many cases, you still need multiple people there.

[medigeek]

You don't understand economics. Short answer: no.

 

An an analogy, back in the day "Oh no! Automation will eliminate all our factory jobs, what are we going to do?!" Essentially, we end shifting the labour market, while still getting the benefits the factory jobs used to get us, only at much lower cost.

 

That's more of a transition. I'm saying that technology can eliminate the majority of the job market.

Ultimately, a solid income (for people) is needed on a wide scale to sustain the economy. You can't achieve that by replacing most jobs.

[apache]

i have a feeling gps will have more of a health manager role in the future, just a thought

[rmorelan]

one thing AIs can't do is write new AIs (algorithms can't be programmed to write new algorithms). highly qualified people that can both program and have in-depth knowledge of medicine will be required

 

medicine = field that changes constantly. new algorithms needed constantly

 

will never run out of jobs

 

also, i'm pretty sure half the point of health care is human interaction

 

actually software can write software That was in effect part of my masters thesis.

 

and you don't have to tell some software how to do something - artificial neural networks actually learn how to do things. We aren't even sure exactly how they do that or exactly how they solve a particular problem, but given enough examples they can use them to classify things for instance.

 

One thing is ultimately, and I mean really ultimately, there is nothing a human brain can do that a machine cannot.

[future_doc]

actually software can write software That was in effect part of my masters thesis.

 

One thing is ultimately, and I mean really ultimately, there is nothing a human brain can do that a machine cannot.

 

Amazing!!

[medigeek]

one thing AIs can't do is write new AIs (algorithms can't be programmed to write new algorithms). highly qualified people that can both program and have in-depth knowledge of medicine will be required

 

medicine = field that changes constantly. new algorithms needed constantly

 

will never run out of jobs

 

also, i'm pretty sure half the point of health care is human interaction

 

You won't even need a third of the docs we have today to "help program." But as said above, won't even be needed.

 

Regardless, automating surgery won't be happening in the next century (actually performing the main part of the procedure).

Many procedures are fairly immune to automation as well.

 

Generally speaking, there are very few jobs/careers which are immune (even in the short run) to automation. So by the time we're replacing MDs, like I said... we'll have replaced the majority of jobs.

And by heading down that road, there will be an even more drastic split of the wealthy and poor.