[domtron_vox]

> a bot stitched up a pig’s small intestines using its own vision, tools, and intelligence to carry out the procedure. What’s more, the Smart Tissue Autonomous Robot (STAR) did a better job on the operation than human surgeons...

I'm curious if they took into account how a person will do a better job when said job is important/risky to themselves. I. E. stitching up a human where a mistake has dire repercussions vs stiching up a bit of desposable flesh.

Was the pig even alive?

[saulrh]

Professional pride, along with "this is unusual and I am being graded on it", can be a significant motivator. I'd actually be more worried about the surgeons being tested being under too much stress, not too little stress.

[Hondor]

Yes the pig was alive - "in vivo" means on a live subject.

I'd expect a robot + human intervention to be strictly better than a human alone. Surgery is a slow static kind of operation so if anything starts to go in the wrong direction, the human can press pause and intervene. Then sit back and let the robot continue after correcting its actions. That's quite different from a driverless car where decisions have to be made quickly and you can't just pause to stop and consider which way to steer in an emergency.