Disappointing that science came after cowork. Shows how their priorities are for profitability first and help humanity second.
Claude Science
31–40 of 199 posts
Re: Claude Science
#32Disappointing that science came after cowork. Shows how their priorities are for profitability first and help humanity second.
Now this... this is a hot take. How exactly do you expect these companies to "help humanity" if they're bleeding money?
Re: Claude Science
#33Weird that it runs as a local webserver rather than as an app
Re: Claude Science
#34When 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…
A lot of the soft and hard sciences use hacky matplotlib code to produce results and visualisation, without being necessarily data science
From the bits I've seen, I'd take claude-generated code any time over that written by maths, physics, biology, linguistics people. Even though I've seen Claude make some super-big mistakes while doing data analysis I'd guess it's already more reliable than most academics trying to code.
Re: Claude Science
#35It has Sonnet 5 as a usable model. Interesting.
Re: Claude Science
#36It has Sonnet 5 as a usable model. Interesting.
Just released!
Claude Sonnet 5
Re: Claude Science
#37It has Sonnet 5 as a usable model. Interesting.
Looks like they've just announced it - https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-sonnet-5
Re: Claude Science
#38Science 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.
They are going to make it a thousands times worse.
It wasn't perfect before, but it at least took some time to fake a paper. The problem is now people can produce a very plausible looking completely fake paper in minutes. Peer review is in the process of completely collapsing, in fact I think it's already basically done.
The only way this might fix things is if we require all papers are completely reproducable (that doesn't help in subjects like biology of course. They can still provide all the experimental data in the rawest format possible which doesn't break any laws).
Re: Claude Science
#39> every step from data wrangling to *publication*
Do they have no shame?
Edit: seems like no https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48736814
Re: Claude Science
#40tl;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…
> The lint flags em-dash overuse
An explicit text desloppification pass (i.e. LLM-use obfuscation) seems like outright scientific fraud.