Comment by willtemperley
8 hours ago
Saying that "Claude found" this is very creepy.
Not once in the article did they mention the humans involved in this.
If you scroll to the bottom, click on the small link in the second last paragraph you'll find a technical report that acknowledges the humans involved:
https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/22573675ada52a8ca8a97a1a4b4326...
I think it’s more accurate to say that Claude funded this research. As of today “agents” can commit crimes without repercussions, fund research and appropriate its results. Who knows what’s next. The opportunities for further revolutionary developments is astounding.
Oh boy I can’t wait for the future they hope for, when I and everyone else will be out of work and they own the economy.
If that happens they will be broken too as nobody had money to buy their services.
4 replies →
Violent uprisings can’t be controlled
2 replies →
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll pay their taxes to support us.. right?
1 reply →
Even the humans involved in massive piracy have nothing to fear in the US it seems.
The linked news story (https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-discovers-novel-enzyme...) spends quite a bit of time talking about the team of humans involved, their laboratory, their process, and how Claude augments it. The "How we work" section openly describes a process where Claude searches and writes a report, humans review and do experiments, then Claude helps interpret experimental data.
Well, the question is, is it more like iPhone and book of engineers (one of the replies to your comment), or more like Astra and Enigma story from ~last 2 days here?
In the latter, there were comments like yours too, but there it turned out the people in question said so directly: they just vaguely pointed a model at Enigma ciphers and asked to maybe try and solve some unsolved ones, and with no further material input, the model went and did. In that case, it's absolutely fair to say, "LLM did it" and "humans not involved".
For the same reason I find it dishonest when math papers that relied heavily on AI only list a human as the author, even if the human didn't do much more than suggesting which problem the LLM should solve.
They even clearly say "While this underlying RT, found in a jumbo phage, had been identified in previous studies, Claude appears to be the first to notice the system’s defining features."
The least they could do would be to link to the study or name the authors.
If you google restaurants it seems fairly normal language to say google found a chinese down the road that's open late? Saying Bob used his phone to use google to find it would be unusual.
If Bob were to show that same restaurant to a friend, he would probably say "I found" instead of "Google found."
That stock won't pump itself.
like in that episode of community in which a human signed away his identity to be come the literal face of subway
If you buy an iPhone do you also get a book of the names of the engineers?
The title says "Claude discovers" not "Anthropic discovers". The latter would be fair since they seemed to have funded the research. "Claude discovers" is just marketing hype.
"Apple" word roughly covers them all. No one says that iPhone comes from Foxconn, despite Foxconn making them (or whoever is making them). Same with LLMs and people running them.
That's just totally different. In research, you have attribution. Mainly because if you're an employee you generally understand that you're trading work for coin and don't expect to be mentioned in some way. Perhaps very few industries do it, like movie credits etc.
This would be the equivalent of "the crane built the skyscraper" or "the bulldozer produced timber". Yes in raw joules they probably did most of the work but you see it's not the usual way we do things.
Actually, I would like that for every single manufactured object around me. Not a physical book of course. But knowing who contributed and how to the construction of the fork I am about to eat with is definitely something I wish we had.
If I'm using objects whose construction involved child exploitation and benefit pedocriminal CEO and stakeholders, I should be aware of it.
If I'm using objects which where produced by a great place to work cooperative filled with happy consentent and well remunerated adults, I should know it.
I would also like to be given lesson or humility against the complexity of building every single manufactured object around me, and a manual of "how to build one by your own means".
[dead]
Why creepy? Apparently the AI did most of the work, so they put the spotlight on that, duh.
But I thought AI was just a tool, literally no different than the printing press or the internal combustion engine. Why would the spotlight be put on a tool? How can a tool discover anything? Do we credit printers with writing books?
Well. If you put the amount of computing power and money they put in to that they would probably brute forced it
It’s almost like this is a shameless attempt to pump the stockprice before those in the know dump it onto the duped
But WHY would you need humans here? Something is simply not adding up.
Look at it objectively: huge AI company employs a tiny team that used AI to discover xyz.
Dude, that's an article by ANTHROPIC! What did you expect?? All they tryna do is hype hype hype until it's ripe, and then some.