Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Science

claude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 199 posts

Re: Claude Science

#21

Post by cma »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #8
cmiles8 wrote: post #5

Science isn’t suffering from a lack of papers. It’s suffering from a lack of good papers. Making it easier to just pump out paper-mill publications is about the last thing science needs right now.

Scientific research is suffering from a reproducibility crisis. Not a publication crisis. LLM's aren't going to solve reproducibility issues.

In some fields like comp sci, when code isn't given but the paper describes the approach, LLMs do help with the reproducibility crisis: you can ask it to reproduce the result through reimplementation by reading the paper.

If it fails you may have to double check it did properly reimplement it, but if it succeeds you do get a reproduction.

Re: Claude Science

#23

Post by FeteCommuniste »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #8
cmiles8 wrote: post #5

Science isn’t suffering from a lack of papers. It’s suffering from a lack of good papers. Making it easier to just pump out paper-mill publications is about the last thing science needs right now.

Scientific research is suffering from a reproducibility crisis. Not a publication crisis. LLM's aren't going to solve reproducibility issues.

The two feed into each other. "Publish or perish" ups the incentive to pump out shaky papers to pad resumes. LLMs make it easier to churn them out.

Re: Claude Science

#24

Post by rolph »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #8
cmiles8 wrote: post #5

Science isn’t suffering from a lack of papers. It’s suffering from a lack of good papers. Making it easier to just pump out paper-mill publications is about the last thing science needs right now.

Scientific research is suffering from a reproducibility crisis. Not a publication crisis. LLM's aren't going to solve reproducibility issues.

it could also be said that scientific interpretation is suffering from a framework crisis. the scientific convention of experiment, is the test of an hypothesis, as a logical construct.

repetition of materials and methods toward reproducibility, holds far less wieght than multiple variants of process designed to test a common hypothesis resulting in agreement.[null, or failure to null]

Re: Claude Science

#25

Post by ianm218 »

JoshGlazebrook wrote: post #2

The fact that we are coming up on a month of Fable being unavailable with essentially zero actual signal from Anthropic around when it may be back is crazy to me. Yet still we have these random new products coming out?

I mean the company has like 3k employees or more right? Lots of them are just working on more applied AI use cases that don't require frontier AI just the right integrations and structure etc.

Opus 4.8/ GPT 5.6 level models with the right workflows/ data/ access are still good enough to do huge amounts of economically valueable work.

Re: Claude Science

#26

Post by ianm218 »

messh wrote: post #14
godzillabrennus wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientific research is suffering from a reproducibility crisis. Not a publication crisis. LLM's aren't going to solve reproducibility issues.

They're gonna worsen it

Isn't this just blanket cynicism?

In the long run conceivable we could use AI to hold papers to a much higher standard, audit all the data and code that is associated etc.

Re: Claude Science

#28

Post by stanford_labrat »

impressive to me, but sadly i feel a little misleading since this is only the data-science part of life sciences.

every few weeks though i test claude and chatgpt on their scientific reasoning and it has definitely improved over time. in my experience without specific instruction on what is known/unknown they typically are lagging behind the leading edge of the field (dev bio/pluripotency in my case). probably because scientific research articles are not open-source so they can't crawl them.

claude has definitely outperformed chatgpt in this regard however, it's scientific reasoning is impressive.

Re: Claude Science

#29

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

minimaxir wrote: post #20

When I saw "Science" I didn't think they meant Data Science , which is what the UIs full of pandas code and plots imply. Even if the focus is on the sciences, I suspect that's the less valuable part of the announcement particularly with the implication of Jupyter Notebook 2.0. Image-understanding for data viz is a use case that has been ignored, and modern LLMs are getting better at proper EDA. But, uh, I may need to…

My take based on the video is that they're thinking more about bioinformatics, which might technically fall under the "data science" umbrella depending how you define your terms, but which is not described that way in common usage.

It's the content that determines the sort of science, not the toolchain.

Re: Claude Science

#30

Post by sampo »

raphman wrote: post #11

tl;dr: Use this if you don't like doing science or doing things well. It hallucinates references. Seems to be based on https://github.com/swaruplab/operon as evidenced by the authorization dialog and https://x.com/testingcatalog/status/2037684573161783373 . Mostly targeted at life sciences - e.g. integration for FDA, PubMed, genomics databases but no ACM / IEEE as far as I can tell. Edit: arXiv search seems to be sup…

Biosciences mostly don't use arXiv, they have their own https://www.biorxiv.org/ but it's usage is not as common as arXiv is in e.g. physics.
Post reply on HN