Taking CV-filler from 80% to 95% of published academic work is yet another revolutionary breakthrough on the road to superintelligence.
Is it cynical to believe this is already true and has been forever?
Is it naive to hope that when AI can do this work, we will all admit that much of the work was never worth doing in the first place, our academic institutions are broken, and new incentives are sorely needed?
I’m reminded of a chapter in Abundance where Ezra Klein notes how successful (NIH?) grant awardees are getting older over time, nobody will take risks on young scientists, and everyone is spending more of their time churning out bureaucratic compliance than doing science.
> Most notably, it provides confidence levels in its findings, which Cheeseman emphasizes is crucial.
These 'confidence levels' are suspect. You can ask Claude today, "What is your confidence in __" and it will, unsurprisingly, give a 'confidence interval'. I'd like to better understand the system implemented by Cheeseman. Otherwise I find the whole thing, heh, cheesy!
There should be some research results showing their fundamental limitations. As opposed to empirical observations. Can you point at them?
Funny you say that.
alsetmusic•1h ago
NewsaHackO•1h ago
taormina•1h ago
famouswaffles•59m ago
WD-42•51m ago
> Cheeseman finds Claude consistently catches things he missed. “Every time I go through I’m like, I didn’t notice that one! And in each case, these are discoveries that we can understand and verify,” he says.
Pretty vague and not really quantifiable. You would think an article making a bold claim would contain more than a single, hand-wavy quote from an actual scientist.
famouswaffles•28m ago
Why? What purpose would quotes serve better than a paper with numbers and code? Just seems like nitpicking here. The article could have gone without a single quote (or had several more) and it wouldn't really change anything. And that quote is not really vague in the context of the article.
inferiorhuman•14m ago
inferiorhuman•56m ago
What is interesting is that HN seems to have reached a crescendo of AI fanboi posts. Yet if you step outside the bubble the Microsoft and Nvidia CEOs are begging people to actually like AI, Dell's come out and said that people don't want AI, and forums are littered with people complaining about negative consequences of AI. Go figure.
bpodgursky•50m ago
famouswaffles•48m ago
inferiorhuman•45m ago
NewsaHackO•44m ago
simonw•16m ago
joshribakoff•44m ago
simonw•18m ago
Citation needed?
Closest I've seen to that was Dario saying AI would write 90% of the code, but that's very different from declaring the death of software development as an occupation.