geoff and team seem convinced ai will solve all our problems. maybe if they spent a little more time talking to actual physicians and patients, they’d understand where ai is useful and where it simply isn’t.
ai makes sense for reducing administrative burden. it has a clear future in manufacturing, imaging, workflow optimization, and plenty of other areas. but when a patient needs a catheter to solve an actual clinical problem, an algorithm isn’t replacing the therapy.
the idea that ai is somehow about to "disrupt" every medical device category feels like something you believe when you spend more time in executive meetings than around actual clinical practice. ai will absolutely disrupt a lot of corporate work, including the work of executives who apparently need technological assistance just to read and respond to emails on time.
therapy is different, yep.
getting that distinction wrong can have real consequences for patients. cathworks may ultimately demonstrate that gm paid for an expensive science project, while scientia may prove to be the kind of practical technology that delivers value for years. time will tell, but apparently nuance isn’t nearly as exciting as putting "ai" on a strategy slide.