It is effectively the same thing, controlling tools with a controller is automating numerous processes that they will 10000% not be able to perform as deftly with their hands even if the steps performed are exactly the same

It's not effectively the same thing at all. One is an entirely new skill (liproscopy); the other is the elimination of an entire skill (AI detection of cancer). The laproscopy does nothing at all unless the surgen is there to operate it, and the use of laproscopy still demands the previous skills required to perform surgery in the first place.

You could outsource all the radiography to another human being and still have the same outcome of "the doctor isn't as good at recognizing it anymore."

You wouldn't need to offload the entire process to another human being; you would simply eliminate that human from the labor force. In your scenario, there is still a human with the skill to identify cancer, whereas the AI process begs to have positions eliminated, potentially leaving no one available for that task. The obvious issue with that is leaving the task fully in the hands of a black box, owned and operated by a for-profit corporation, whose insentives are dictated by the mechanics of capitalism and not the hipocratic oath or some other human-centered demand.

Regardless, it would seem you appear to have ignored the part of my comment that states:

Obviously, this is only one task among many tasks the specialist performs, and there will still be a need for the whole of the specialist's skills. It does, however, produce worse outcomes if, say, the specialist is moved to a facility that lacks this technology after a significant amount of time relying on it. This isn't an issue for laparoscopy in "developed" countries; it is a nearly ubiquitous technology, making the skills of surgeons trained in laparoscopy very portable. [...] There is ultimately still a net positive here, since these models can be more accurate than humans at identifying cancer."

And that comes with the huge caviate that @7bicycles@hexbear.net points out in his comment:

This is too small scale. It is the healthcare systems jobs to find tumors, but that's bigger than a doctor. Therein lies the problem, like I'm sure AI can do a good enough - even better - job of it than the guy who's looking at your X-Rays after his 49 hour shift, no doubt. But that shit should be run by a nonprofit or government agency which is definitely not the case here. Otherwise, there's the very real possibility of market capture. They do a bang up job of it until every clinic doesn't know how to do it by hand anymore, jack up the prices or make the services worse. This needs to be open source and run by something that is not legally profit oriented.