I basically did the same thing almost one and half years ago and not many people cared, but I still believe that this is the future for computational biology. https://celvox.co/solutions/axon
Competition is healthy, yours looks cooler.
Claude Science
111–120 of 199 posts
Re: Claude Science
#112So it's like Claude Cowork for Science, i.e. for less tech-savvy users? I would imagine scientists with some coding background might just prefer to use Claude Code normally and integrate it with their stack of choice, but perhaps the comfort and ease of use of Claude Science still wins out.
lebovic answered this, but it isnt just claude cowork especially with connection and abilities related to SPC clusters. I could defientiyle see my former team at a national lab integrating this with their systems, and forgoing the use of Claude Code all together
Re: Claude Science
#113When 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.
It's not obvious from the marketing if this is applicable to non-biosciences. If it is, they couldn't come up with a single example from another domain like astrophysics?
https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-science-ai-workbench
EDIT: Installed the app, it has zero connectors for non biology, which is a shame. I assume they'll come later.
Re: Claude Science
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
pharma is currently in a tailspin and not really spending money. they'd rather outsource everything possible to china or india right now.
Eli Lilly's recently partnered with NVIDIA to spend a lot of money for a new research lab in the Bay Area so not entirely
Lily is probably the one major pharma company doing alright these days. That being said this thread has a more sober take:
https://old.reddit.com/r/biotech/comments/1rgjnrj/lilly_bets...
Re: Claude Science
#115I've worked with similar tools and while they're impressive, it's too often the case that the LLM literally makes up fake but realistic looking data and pretends that it's real. This includes pretty deep fakery like setting up mock database connectors so that it looks like you're fetching data from the right place, but it's just getting synthetic data
How does this guard against that?
Re: Claude Science
#116[dead]
Re: Claude Science
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The lint flags em-dash overuse An explicit text desloppification pass (i.e. LLM-use obfuscation) seems like outright scientific fraud.
It sure is! But ironically, because of the intention behind the obfuscation. Not the fact that AI was used in a research paper. I have no issues with AI use in science. If claude can explain my research better than me, then have at it. But I do NOT want to read a passage thinking it was written by a human when it wasn't. Science has no idea yet how such disclosures should work yet. What should be done by humans as a…
The thing that really scared me about the landing site for Claude Science was this promotional image of the software in action:
https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6889473510b50328dbb70ae6/...
Very depressing. MDPI journals will be saturated with these slop papers (if they're not already). It shocks me that Anthropic thought that this was a good thing, and says a lot about their research integrity (or lack thereof).
> Science has no idea yet how such disclosures should work yet.
Technically, most journals have a policy that LLM use should be acknowledged, but I agree we're still very much in the weeds about this right now. Much firmer guidelines should have been established years ago.
(I also have no issues with LLM usage in research either, btw -- I use LLMs to fact-check / proofread / discuss / sanity-check my conceptual work, to background myself in other research, and to refactor and assist with analytical coding. They can be a game-changer for medical research, when used rationally and sensibly.)
Re: Claude Science
#118[dead]
Re: Claude Science
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well LLMs are largely useless and people are realizing that.
Raw dog Chat LLMs are pretty worthless. But run an agent with tool invocation and they get scary good. It's amazing how much reasoning is packed into the English language. Provide your model with enough information and it can pull some miracles out of thin air. It's not the "Replace humans" level yet, but you can automate a lot of stuff you wouldn't expect to be able to automate.
What you are saying, if I follow, is that LLMs basically worthless: it turns out that coding is so simple that verifiable rewards can tune weights surprisingly well for that one peculiar task. ('agentic' is fancy word for letting them run what they write - not to put too fine a point on it.)
You've made the most damning remark against Planet LLM I've read.
Re: Claude Science
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well LLMs are largely useless and people are realizing that.
Raw dog Chat LLMs are pretty worthless. But run an agent with tool invocation and they get scary good. It's amazing how much reasoning is packed into the English language. Provide your model with enough information and it can pull some miracles out of thin air. It's not the "Replace humans" level yet, but you can automate a lot of stuff you wouldn't expect to be able to automate.
No its not doing magic. Im impressed when anyone can play a guitar, because I dont know anything about playing a guitar. Someone who's been playing the guitar for years isnt impressed by all guitar players.
This seems the case with many people using llms to write code. They think everything an llm does is magical.
It will never be able to replace humans with two brain cells.