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

71–80 of 199 posts

Re: Claude Science

#71

Post by trollbridge »

immmmmm wrote: post #69

When I was doing my phd, around 2 decades ago, I was often going to the library’s compactus to fish for a Phys Rev from the 80s. Back then papers were sparse and expensive. But the quality! The Higgs boson is 3 papers, 6 authors and 6 pages in total! At the end of my phd, 30++ pages slop papers were the norm. Nowadays, well.. The paper by Higgs was one page. The guy probably published less than a hundred pages in his…

There is an obscure topic where I have read basically every single dissertation, study, etc on that topic (or even just articles that mention it). It is very noticeable how much briefer older publications were.

It would be impossible to do that today. I guess I could have an LLM just summarise all the papers…

Re: Claude Science

#72

Post by dmezzetti »

Why does HN let OpenAI and Anthropic basically advertise but it throws down the gauntlet at a small developer like myself when we do "self promotion"?

Top 3 posts as of this moment are all about Claude.

Re: Claude Science

#73

Post by Der_Einzige »

Retr0id wrote: post #40
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…

> The lint flags em-dash overuse An explicit text desloppification pass (i.e. LLM-use obfuscation) seems like outright scientific fraud.

We send our regards: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15061 (ICLR 2026)

Re: Claude Science

#74

Post by PotatoFarmsKing »

Before LLMs the tech groups I followed were ripping with discussions about this and that topic, what to use and when; I believe these discussions sparked the creation of many frameworks and tools out of "this seems like a good idea, wouldn't hurt to implement it". Unfortunately it all resolves around LLMs nowadays and how to make some LLM work some way or another, we don't even discuss the very topics the groups were created to discuss. I fear science is soon to taste the same thing - discussions about LLMs taking place instead of the actual topics that would be discussed otherwise.

Re: Claude Science

#75

Post by breezybottom »

dgfl wrote: post #49
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.

My hope is that the flood of AI articles pushes the academic publication system to its highly-anticipated breaking point. The most absurd part is that everyone in academia knows that publish or perish is tremendously damaging to real research. Yet we’re all hostage of this system that we created in the name of “merit” and “efficiency”. We need a different system to identify and reward talented hard-working people. Ba…

Oh it's getting there. I've turned down several referee requests this year because the paper looks like AI slop. A lot of it seems to come from China.

Re: Claude Science

#77

Post by Daishiman »

trollbridge wrote: post #71
immmmmm wrote: post #69

When I was doing my phd, around 2 decades ago, I was often going to the library’s compactus to fish for a Phys Rev from the 80s. Back then papers were sparse and expensive. But the quality! The Higgs boson is 3 papers, 6 authors and 6 pages in total! At the end of my phd, 30++ pages slop papers were the norm. Nowadays, well.. The paper by Higgs was one page. The guy probably published less than a hundred pages in his…

There is an obscure topic where I have read basically every single dissertation, study, etc on that topic (or even just articles that mention it). It is very noticeable how much briefer older publications were. It would be impossible to do that today. I guess I could have an LLM just summarise all the papers…

What's the reason for this? Publish-or-perish? Papers have to be more thorough? Extra junk tacked on for the sake of showing lengthier papers?

Re: Claude Science

#78

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

quijoteuniv wrote: post #53
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…

All of these new things are starting to look like soviet space program propaganda. Is there something really new?

Old wine, new bottle...

Re: Claude Science

#79

Post by malux85 »

jszymborski wrote: post #70

Any other researchers paranoid of using LLMs for fear of them using your data and front running your publications/work? Or incorporating it in training data and then spitting it out to a competing lab?

Pay for enterprise or use one of the guaranteed no data retention models (e.g. Bedrock)

Re: Claude Science

#80

Post by SubiculumCode »

lebovic wrote: post #44

I built one of the connected tools included in this launch (the Biomni HPC [1]), and I have spent an inordinate amount of my life working on this problem. (I also worked at Anthropic, but not on this product.) As other comments have pointed out, this is for data science – but it's capable of more than making plots and writing papers [2]. It has integrations with many databases and computational tools, including a res…

Connecting AI directly to the data sources (instead of just asking it to provide code that I run locally for myself) can get quite complicated in terms of meeting institutional policy, applicable law, data access-storage requirements (e.g. NIH data repositories), and can require legal agreements between institutions and the AI provider.

I cannot touch. At least not yet.

Post reply on HN