Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Will Generative AI Robots Replace Surgeons?

How AI-driven surgical robots may reshape medicine, challenge regulators, and test patient trust in the operating room.

Opinion

Will Generative AI Robots Replace Surgeons?

Generative AI and surgical robotics are advancing toward autonomous surgery, raising new questions about safety, regulation, payment models, and trust.

Getty Images, Luis Alvarez

In medicine’s history, the best technologies didn’t just improve clinical practice. They turned traditional medicine on its head.

For example, advances like CT, MRI, and ultrasound machines did more than merely improve diagnostic accuracy. They diminished the importance of the physical exam and the physicians who excelled at it.


Now, an even more radical upheaval is headed for the operating room. Generative AI and surgical robotics are advancing so quickly that procedures once done solely by surgeons may soon be performed autonomously by robots. How soon this happens depends on the willingness of (a) clinicians to support the transition, (b) regulators to approve the applications, and (c) patients to trust a machine with the scalpel.

How Generative AI Plus Robotics Would Perform Surgery

The idea of a robot performing autonomous surgery (that is, completing an operation without a human guiding the controls) sounds like science fiction. But the rapid rise of generative AI since ChatGPT’s debut in 2022 has made it possible.

Hundreds of millions of people use tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude, yet most have only a vague sense of how large language models work. Contrary to popular assumptions, these large language models do far more than “predict the next word.” If that were all they did, then GenAI tools would routinely produce incoherent paragraphs and nonsensical explanations. Instead, they consistently provide sophisticated reasoning, detailed plans, and expert-level summaries.

They accomplish this through imitation. In medicine, generative AI systems are trained on a massive corpora of medical textbooks, scientific journals, surgical videos, and clinical conversations. With billions of internal parameters, the model learns to mimic how humans solve diagnostic problems, interpret images, and execute procedural tasks. With more training, its responses increasingly resemble those of expert clinicians.

Today’s models can already describe the precise steps required to remove a gallbladder. But executing those steps requires two additional capabilities:

  • Training on thousands of real surgical cases to learn how expert surgeons perform operative procedures.
  • A physical mechanism capable of translating surgical steps into precise movements.

That’s where existing surgical robots come in.

Modern Surgical Robotics: The Missing Link

Over the past two decades, operative robots have allowed doctors to work through smaller incisions with enhanced visualization, increased precision, and tremor-free control.

A typical robotic procedure involves the surgeon sitting at a console, watching a high-definition video feed of the operative field. Then, using hand controls, the physician directs the robot’s arms. The robot carries out movements inside the patient with sub-millimeter accuracy.

For generative AI to operate autonomously, developers would provide information and video from tens of thousands of recorded procedures. The large language model would analyze the data coming from the operative cameras inside the patient and match it to the precise hand movements surgeons make at the console in response. Over time, the model would learn to reproduce the same stimulus-response patterns that expert surgeons use — just as it currently learns to generate accurate answers or create videos following verbal or written prompts.

This approach parallels how self-driving cars are trained. But unlike the chaos of city streets (where vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians constantly move in unpredictable ways) an operating room is a controlled space, and human anatomy is more predictable than the external environment. Generative AI will have an easier time distinguishing anatomical structures than a self-driving car has when deciding whether an object leaving the curb is a scrap of paper, a rolling ball, or a child running into the street.

In the meantime, progress in robotics continues to accelerate. Elon Musk recently predicted that Tesla’s humanoid robot project Optimus would soon be able to perform “sophisticated medical procedures — perhaps things that humans can’t even do.”

Putting The Robotic Pieces Together

The building blocks for autonomous robotic surgery already exist. Whether it becomes reality in five years or 10 will depend less on technological progress and more on how quickly and effectively hospitals, surgeons, and technology companies collaborate to train these systems.

Three changes are needed now to prepare for that future.

A. Payment models must be updated

U.S. healthcare’s fee-for-service reimbursement system rewards higher volume, not superior clinical outcomes. Hospitals earn more when operations take longer. And when reimbursement is tied to each inpatient day, there is little financial incentive to schedule procedures after hours or on weekends.

Shifting to bundled payments (a single rate for an entire surgical episode) will financially reward hospitals that perform safe, efficient surgical procedures at night and on weekends when surgeons aren’t available. By eliminating clinical delays, patients will recover sooner, reducing the demand for inpatient beds while lowering costs.

B. Regulators will need to apply different approval standards

The FDA’s current evaluation framework for AI-enabled devices focuses on the specific data sets used to train an algorithm and the consistency of its outputs. That approach works for narrow AI tools (like those that read mammograms or flag suspicious skin lesions) that are trained on specific datasets.

It does not work for generative AI, which is trained on vast, multimodal information sources and personalized inputs. A more appropriate method would evaluate actual clinical performance. For AI-directed robotic surgery, expert surgeons would review anonymized operative recordings — some performed by humans, others by the AI — without knowing which is which. Approval would be granted only when the generative AI consistently matches the quality, safety, and outcomes achieved by expert clinicians.

C. Medical culture will have to evolve

Clinicians have long resisted technologies that threaten professional autonomy, judgment, or income. Autonomous robotic surgery will be no exception.

But rising economic pressure from the growing unaffordability of care, combined with the promise of safer and more consistent outcomes, will ultimately drive adoption.

Patients will hesitate at first. Technologies that take over tasks once performed exclusively by humans always generate concern. When ATMs were first introduced, many Americans worried their deposits might disappear. But as people gained experience and the systems proved reliable, trust grew, and the technology became routine.

Generative-AI-enabled surgical robots will follow a similar trajectory.


Robert Pearl, the author of “ChatGPT, MD,” teaches at both the Stanford University School of Medicine and the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.


Read More

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links
Facebook launches voting resource tool
Facebook launches voting resource tool

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links

Facebook is testing limits on shared external links, which would become a paid feature through their Meta Verified program, which costs $14.99 per month.

This change solidifies that verification badges are now meaningless signifiers. Yet it wasn’t always so; the verified internet was built to support participation and trust. Beginning with Twitter’s verification program launched in 2009, a checkmark next to a username indicated that an account had been verified to represent a notable person or official account for a business. We could believe that an elected official or a brand name was who they said they were online. When Twitter Blue, and later X Premium, began to support paid blue checkmarks in November of 2022, the visual identification of verification became deceptive. Think Fake Eli Lilly accounts posting about free insulin and impersonation accounts for Elon Musk himself.

This week’s move by Meta echoes changes at Twitter/X, despite the significant evidence that it leaves information quality and user experience in a worse place than before. Despite what Facebook says, all this tells anyone is that you paid.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less