On the other hand, humans are much better at perceptual analysis (e.g. pattern recognition, visual-spatial perception, etc.) and making reasonable decisions based on incomplete and possibly conflicting data. These are the types of tasks that computers fail miserably at.
If I had to add 1,000 numbers, I'd take a computer over a human any day. But if I had a complicated situation where decisions need to be made quickly and with ambiguous data where there's often no "single, clear" solution, I'd much prefer a human.
I submit that surgery is like the latter situation, so even a "med school flunky" would be better than a robot.
That said, this is a moot point since the robot we're talking about isn't autonomous and makes *zero* decisions by itself. It's closer to a remote control device that allows surgeons to make more precise movements and also see better inside the chest without having to open it up.