IBM's Supercomputer Watson beat us in Jeopardy. Is taking over pastry making. And will be lending a helping hand in the health care industry. A writer from Forbes details an oncologist's take on Watson.

Dr Jack West, is not impressed.

From Forbes:

In the end, however, the key question needs to be whether adoption of Watson will lead to better outcomes.   My skepticism is no more valid than the wide-eyed optimism about what the next technical advance will bring, but we don’t need to rely on either of these positions. In clinical medicine, a new procedure or medication is tested and compared to current practice in a proper clinical trial.  Considering that Watson will be a costly new intervention to implement, it is appropriate to seek actual evidence that patients do better, that patients and/or physicians are more satisfied, and that costs are either lower or are justifiably increased in combination with other results.  I don’t think Watson should be widely implemented without broad testing and proof of benefit any more than we should administer a new unproven expensive medication to cancer patients just because its manufacturer conjectures that it will be a breakthrough.
Obviously, there's a long way more to go for robo-docs to be around with real doctors for diagnosing and prognosis matters. Read the whole article over at Forbes in the link below: