To summarise your view, more surgeons means not enough experience in a given surgery to maintain base levels of skill.

I think this is wrong; you would need a significant increase, and the issue I was responding to was “shortage”. There’s no prospect of shortages when the pipeline has many more capable people than positions. Here in Australia, a quota system is used, which granted, can forecast wrong (we have a deficit of anaesthetists currently due to the younger generation working fewer hours on average). We don’t need robots from this perspective.

To your second point, “rare surgery”; I can see the point. Even in this case, however, I’d much rather see the robot as a “tool” that a surgeon employs on those occasions, rather than some replacement for an expert.

"Rare" is an overloaded word, so let me clarify: I asked one of my friends who's a general surgeon, and he estimates he does 1 to 2 open cholecystectomies or appendectomies per year. It falls in an unfortunate gray zone where the cases aren't frequent enough for you to build up skills, but they are frequent enough that you can't just forward all the cases on to one or two experienced surgeons in the area. (They would get incredibly backed up.) And sometimes a case starts laparoscopic and has to be converted to open partway through, so you can't always anticipate in advance that a senior surgeon will need to be available.

I agree that robotic surgery is not a solution for this. We haven't even got L5 long haul trucking yet, so full auto robotic surgery in the real world, as opposed to controlled environments, is probably decades away.

> I’d much rather see the robot as a “tool” that a surgeon employs on those occasions, rather than some replacement for an expert.

I mean we already have this in the sense of teleoperated robots.