That’s not true. Mythos annihilated everyone’s benchmarks and now the other companies are all distilling it. They’re solving equations that people haven’t solved, and they weren’t meant to do that. Mythos apparently is designing drugs even though it wasn’t trained with that in mind at all. Anthropic launched an entire pharma wing. It looked like things had plateau’d there for a minute but it’s back to becoming more real.
You are using these to solve the novel research problems no one else has solved?
Or you are using them to solve problems you don’t know how to solve?
The things you’re saying are marketing hype. Point me to the scientific journal where Claude is credited as a co-author of a research paper.
Ive also read these articles. I also use LLMs every day. I’m working on building closed agentic loops right now. I think I’m pretty on top of the current state of the art here.
The truth is much more nuanced and much less exciting than you think it is.
A scientific journal where claude is a co-author? First of all, what does that even mean? Like what is that a metric of? You think no one has used Claude to help them with novel scientific problems? I mean, come on.
It gets at the “how” without explaining the “why,” he adds. “One can check out that it’s correct, but it would be nice to be able to tell a story.”
A.I. could help prove conjectures, but at this point, the models aren’t able to provide reliable, step-by-step instructions for solving them, reports Fortune’s Eva Roytburg. Humans can fill more than 100 pages documenting just one proof.
Blumberg describes A.I.’s role with an analogy: “Suppose that Moses came down from the mountain with tablets, and on the tablet was written, ‘Cancer can be cured.’ Would you care? You don’t just want the answer to the question. You want to learn something from the answer,”
Does this sound like AGI?
Also, this is once again not a novel problem. This was interpolation, not extrapolation.
What does novel mean to you? I’m honestly asking. And what is your benchmark, I am honestly asking. And again, I have not asserted AGI is here, but if the level is “working with a genius” I do think we’re there, although I do think the genius is senile, like I said to begin with. So yeah, that sort of sounds like someone who could solve an equation no one ever has before, but would have trouble explaining it. Also the article referenced saying they couldn’t explain equations was written before that equation was solved. My guy!
deleted by creator
My point is, I don’t believe the current AI tech is going to get to the point where it’s as useful as humans.
We have long since reached the point where diminishing returns make significant improvements or advancement unfeasible.
deleted by creator
That’s not true. Mythos annihilated everyone’s benchmarks and now the other companies are all distilling it. They’re solving equations that people haven’t solved, and they weren’t meant to do that. Mythos apparently is designing drugs even though it wasn’t trained with that in mind at all. Anthropic launched an entire pharma wing. It looked like things had plateau’d there for a minute but it’s back to becoming more real.
You are really missing a lot of context here. None of this is true in the way you seem to think it is.
You are mixing up marketing hype with reality.
Uh no. I use these things every day. There is a marked and notable improvement that is happening.
You are using these to solve the novel research problems no one else has solved?
Or you are using them to solve problems you don’t know how to solve?
The things you’re saying are marketing hype. Point me to the scientific journal where Claude is credited as a co-author of a research paper.
Ive also read these articles. I also use LLMs every day. I’m working on building closed agentic loops right now. I think I’m pretty on top of the current state of the art here.
The truth is much more nuanced and much less exciting than you think it is.
Actually yes, kind of. I use it to find financial fraud from large public datasets. It wasn’t trained to do that, in the slightest.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ai-disproves-a-decades-old-mathematical-idea-the-biggest-conjecture-that-the-tech-has-played-a-role-in-yet-180989189/
https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/openai-says-its-unreleased-astra-model-solved-10-hard-math-problems-anthropic-claims-fable-cracked-5-2962067-2026-08-03
What hype am I falling for?
A scientific journal where claude is a co-author? First of all, what does that even mean? Like what is that a metric of? You think no one has used Claude to help them with novel scientific problems? I mean, come on.
And second of all, here you go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36589923/#%3A~%3Atext=Rapamycin+in+the+context+of+Pascal's+Wager%3A%2C36589923.+*+PMCID%3A+PMC9796173.+*+DOI%3A+10.18632%2Foncoscience.571.
They banned them not long after.
Does this sound like AGI?
Also, this is once again not a novel problem. This was interpolation, not extrapolation.
What does novel mean to you? I’m honestly asking. And what is your benchmark, I am honestly asking. And again, I have not asserted AGI is here, but if the level is “working with a genius” I do think we’re there, although I do think the genius is senile, like I said to begin with. So yeah, that sort of sounds like someone who could solve an equation no one ever has before, but would have trouble explaining it. Also the article referenced saying they couldn’t explain equations was written before that equation was solved. My guy!