« Power of the press: Danielle Kilgo on how journalists and news organizations cover protests | Main | An epidemic of teenage loneliness: Jonathan Haidt and Jean M. Twenge on the mental health impact of smartphones on Gen Z »

08/12/2021

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Iva

Hello, It looks' to me that we are going to have a very interesting class.

Robert R Freshour

I believe Robots can't solve everything.

Shahnaz Mr Gupta

I totally agree with Robert's statement that robots cannot solve everything. Robots are another man made machines which operates based upon commands by humans.

Noah

This is an interesting topic to think about. While robots can help in the medical field quite a bit, I think they should not be caring for people on their own. I agree with the article on that. The author says, "In the short term, there is no question that while robots may provide some support to human workers and help minimize their exposure to unsafe conditions, they cannot replace their human counterparts.". In the future robots may be able to care for people fully, however I think people should continue to take care of people.

Jer'miah Cooper

. I personally agree with Guevarra, having artificial intelligence in the medical field is not terrible although it can present many complications. It is very hard to replace human connections with robots and expect it to be the best alternative. This is just another situation where jobs can be reduced and taken people who worked so to care for others. I again agree with the author there are too many situational events that can happen in the case of having robots in the medical field.

Colby

I totally agree that robots could us in the medical field and many other fields as well.
There are many things they could do that would help keep humans safe and possible
perform better than us humans. I do not think we should rely entirely on them to do
certain things. There are many problems that could present themselves without a
human being present to mediate.

Jane Porcheddu

In her article she appropriately states her position. I believe that she is most for the advancement of robotics in care but through carefully calculated measures which are laid out in ana organized manor through out the article.

Hina - Ariana

I agree with previous comments, specifically Noah who stated, "I think they should not be caring for people on their own." Although robots are very capable and their abilities are on the rise, they aren't at human level yet. As the author mentions, "Robots can function very well in factories and warehouses because assembly-line work provides a uniform environment; in homes and health care facilities, such uniformity is more difficult to achieve." Medical attention requires attentive understanding and no two people are the same or respond the same. New things are always coming out and robots are not at the level of understanding that input. This could potentially put more lives at risk then saving them.

...

Are robots in the medical field practical? After reading this blog, I agree that robots are practical in the medical field. The blog “Relying on robots to care for us” states, “robots do caregiving work.” Although the sale of robots has increased over the past few years, the article states that “In the short term, there is no question that while robots may provide some support to human workers and help minimize their exposure to unsafe conditions, they cannot replace their human counterparts.” This quote proves that although robots may be useful and more practical in the future; The current state of the technology of the technical robots is in no way, shape or form as efficient as humans. As robots will provide assistance to humans when caregiving, they will not fully be able to replace human connections with robots. These robots do not compare to humans' critical thinking skills with difficult medical applications like surgery, whereas they can be more applicable doing simple tasks like giving shots.

Sean

Robots are exciting creations that have come a very long way, but I don't believe they can do everything in our daily lives for us. Robots will always need a way to turn on and off. They also will never be able to function emotionally like a human does. Robots do not compare, or at least right now.

Alexandra S.

I agree with all the previous comments, robots such as “Grace” can help provide healthcare workers some support and help minimize their exposure to unsafe conditions in the medical fields, but we should not let them care for people on their own. As mentioned in the article, “AI facial recognition systems are notoriously bad, for example, at interpreting the emotional responses of people with darker skin tones. Some can’t perceive the faces of people with darker skin at all, let alone understand their expressions.” This would put women of color at a much higher risk than white people. These risks would include the risk from AI facial recognition and the risks brought by racial bias in health insurers’ algorithm. No two patients are equal in healthcare. Medics are still discovering new ways in how our bodies react to certain procedures and medications, so how would it be possible to program a robot on how to react to unknown outcomes? Many healthcare workers who are people of color often lack a living wage, workplace safety, paid sick and family leave, and adequate health care. With the potential employment of these robots, many of these essential workers will lose their jobs.

AA

I agree with Guevarra on multiple aspects of her writing. Robots entering the medical field is an entire ethical debacle. Robots must tackle problems such as emotional awareness, suiting unique patient needs, and running for extended periods of time. Emotional awareness was tackled simultaneously with racial and gender biasing which I personally did not understand completely. I agree that racial bias and gender bias may play a role in robot-patient interaction; but why diverge so heavily from the topic to discuss racial bias at such length? Moreover, the utilization of these robots can vary. Robots do not necessarily have to replace human healthcare workers entirely; they can coexist and handle tasks side-by-side, sustaining an efficient workflow and providing proper care to patients. Furthermore, in tandem with my previous statement, I agree with Guevarra who concludes that, “Thus, the idea is not to simply replace human workers with a more efficient technology but to develop a workplace where robots and human workers can truly coexist.”

Chloe48

I think there are pros and cons to ai's entry into the medical field. On the plus side, AI can not only dramatically reduce the workload of doctors and nurses, but it can also prioritize emergencies, automatically analyze patient data, and even interface graphically. Secondly, the AI surgical assistance system can provide doctors with a clearer perspective, enabling them to perform precise and fast operations with less harm to patients. In addition to that, I believe that aging is a trend in many developed countries, and this will inevitably lead to higher and higher labor costs in the future. Furthermore, today, more and more young people are choosing to be dinky, which inevitably puts society under tremendous pressure to retire in the future. So, I think the Development and Popularization of AI will be a very good thing for a society with an aging population. When the time comes, people will be able to live at home and enjoy the life mode of a nursing home. However, there is bound to be a bad side to AI when it benefits humans, such as Patient privacy. When AI relies on big data to work, it can easily result in patient privacy and data leakage. As for the problem of robots not recognizing people of color mentioned by the author. This reminds me of a recent episode of a TV show called Better Off Ted (the episode is called "Racial Sensitivity"), the Company Veridian Dynamics decides to save money by installing sensors at its headquarters that turn off the power whenever no one is in the room, except for a glitch in the system that prevents it from recognizing dark-skinned people. When the show's protagonist Ted Crisp (Jay Harrington) suggests that the sensors are racist, his boss Veronic (Portia De Rossi) explains that the system isn't targeting black people, it just ignores them. Back to the application of ai in the medical field, I believe that with the continuous development of computer science, this problem will eventually be solved.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

By signing up you agree to W. W. Norton’s
privacy policy and terms of use.

About They Say / I Blog

  • New readings posted monthly, on the same issues that are covered in “They Say / I Say” with Readings—and with a space where readers can comment, and join the conversation.

Follow us on Twitter to get updates about new posts and more! @NortonWrite

Become a Fan