> While combing through the raw DNA sequence near the RT, the agent exclaimed: “[The DNA next to the RT] is spectacular: I can see by eye a tandem repeat array … that's a CRISPR-like … repeat array?!”
I love that with AI discoveries, we can relive the discoveries from agent transcripts like this.
I'm sort of imagining future histories involving notable AI events peppered with direct quotes like these.
Intelligence as a measure of the ability to define predictive models of certain problems (and their solutions).
Promoting LLMs is encoding the problem we want into the query vectors, and through the magic of the complex training and the power of operations in a very large dimensional abstract space the AI can manipulate the representations, and iteratively approximate solutions. (And using bigger and bigger contexts and better encodings it can form better models.)
Nobody knows how it works, really. It just turned out that if you try to predict the next word then you get intelligent behavior, depending on amount of training data, and the size and topology of the network. But again, nobody knows why, and what the limits are.
I don't. I seem to think at a more abstract, pre-verbal level rather than through an internal voice.
Some studies suggest that frequent internal monologue may occur in roughly 30–50% of people [1], but the research is based on relatively small samples.
How do you know that it's the words driving the thinking, rather than the stream of words just being an observable trace tacked onto the actual thinking?
AI is way beyond conventional LLM architecture now. It combines LLMs with search + RL. The traditional LLM architecture hit a wall around GPT-4o. Arc AGI evals show this.
All that extra is clear as day compared to the mystery of how neural network training decides to divide and balance the weights in even small neutral networks.
We can, at best, approach a good set of weights, even in tiny neural networks.
Imagine if we found a way to calculate the exact optimal weights for a given loss function. I mean, there is an exact optimal solution, it exists, but we can't find it exactly, even for a neural network with just 50 parameters.
There is no point in that because the loss function itself is already an approximation. No one knows what is the exact loss function for any given non-trivial real-world task.
I mean, the subtlety of the neural network weights that emerge from training are not fully comprehended by anyone, man or machine.
Every individual calculation is understood, and every step of training is understood, but the exact nature of those weights that divide the responsibility of responding to subtle changes of input in intelligent ways is beyond me.
It is odd (or maybe not) that they decided to publish a marketing whitepaper rather than a more traditional journal submission + preprint. The work does appear to be sufficient for a publication, though there's a good chance a reviewer will rip into them for some of the assertions they make, but given the topic I'm sure the paper will be accepted regardless.
The market for entry-level programmers has already declined, but at least they were somewhat in demand and made reasonable salaries. Now what happens to post-docs who already make almost nothing and often get treated like crap?
Did anyone read the blogpost? They did publish a pre-print:
> Our work to understand the primary function of ARTs is ongoing. However, we think it is important to share such findings early, both to demonstrate Claude’s capabilities and to give the broader community insight into what we’re working on. We have released a pre-print (here) that discusses this in more detail.
I just looked at it. I really hope they're not thinking of sending that to an actual bioinformatics, computational biology or molecular biology journal! So embarrassing...
(I love how Anthropic boast about building a lab, but don't seem to realise that you have to test your hypothesis in the lab! Right now, all their "spectacular" assertions are untested and unproven.)
I realise that this will only improve from here, but gods Anthropic has no idea about the biological sciences right now.
What's with all this pre-print business. It became very prevalent during covid, where it felt like every week some new pre-print was published that discusses some new aspect of the virus. These papers would then be used in arguments and put forward as proof of whatever claim the arguer was making.
Every man and his dog can publish a pre-print and in my opinion it's academically worthless.
Preprints are just a way to sacrifice rigor for accessibility and velocity. You can throw out "here, this is what I'm working on, here are the quick and dirty findings" really fast and with little friction.
This does skip the academic "checks and balances" like journal selection and peer review - but it can also help anyone else who's working on the adjacent topics.
If a field is moving fast, and you think there can be some value in your work for others in the near term? Preprint. If your work is too incomplete or too minor to warrant trying to polish and publish it, but you don't want to table it? Preprint. Too deep in corporate structures to care about academic "street cred", and want your work to be accessible? Preprint. Have an exciting early finding that you want to push out there, and are willing to take the rep risks of being wrong about it? Preprint.
There's a reason why preprints came to be the lifeblood of ML.
Academia isn't my thing but I also wonder if there isn't an aspect of putting a stake in the ground? So that if someone beats you to publishing you at least have some record of being on that track.
I have a similar to pagerank method I use to evaluate such papers. I look for the references to see how many authors are using their own references (past work), the idea being that people do not jump too far, they make incremental progress.
For the pre-print I could only find only one author who has a single referenced article.
The review time on top journals is multiple years now (your paper will go through many review loops each of which takes months). It's just totally unworkable for active research, whether you're a student or a corporation.
Journal articles are usually behind a paywall. Preprints are a fully open workaround allowed by most journals.
> Every man and his dog can publish a pre-print and in my opinion it's academically worthless.
Sure but if you look at the authors names and see they have 50 other published papers, you can get a rough idea that it's probably equivalently good to their other work.
Until you've done it yourself, it's hard to grok just how bad the peer review process is. It's like...5% better than nothing.
Honestly you could argue peer review is worse than nothing, as it also filters out actually quality work that violates some dogma of the field.
many drugs were discovered, evaluated and approved without understanding at all how they worked.
iirc back in the day chemists synthesized a whole bunch of random compounds, observed their effects (in mice etc., or even the chemists tasting them!) then did clinical trials to measure safety and efficacy.
high-throughput screening of chemical libraries on in vitro assays is the modern version of this. "rational" drug design, which uses understanding of mechanisms to design chemical structures for a specific purpose, largely failed back in the '80s.
True, but it's also not your job to understand what post-docs are suggesting (hopefully), unlike post-docs who kind of need to understand what LLMs are suggesting.
Not to get back into the AI safety debate from last week, but I really, really want a team of human experts to understand what the AI is suggesting before we administer new medical treatments or synthesize new lifeforms in the lab.
There will always be a %age of humans who will be curious how the universe works including LLMs. Delusional to think those humans are only incentivized by degrees, or money.
Humans were curious and started the intelligence / learning explosion much much before money and degrees were invented.
For most of history we died of easily preventable diseases because we lacked the scientific institutions to learn how to prevent them. The fact that a percentage of the population wanted to know more is why we live so well today, but it didn’t stop many of those people from dying awfully. It wouldn’t take a lot to go back there, or at least to a civilization that would go back there the second the AIs have a major outage.
Sure. But unless they are born into a very wealthy family, or decide to pass up on having a family and other hobbies, they won't be able to satisfy that curiosity beyond a very basic level.
We got to 80 without inventing money. Living that long back then was hard work every day.
Then the industrial revolution happened, and we got state pensions at one end of life and extended childhood a few years past adolescence on the other. We currently pay for this… by taxes funding both education and a pension.
Absent the radical transformations of an AI driven economy, we live 200 years in exactly the same way.
With those transformations, all bets are off unless they violate the laws of physics.
This is a bit like saying that shoes are more important than shoe factories. Yes, sure, I can't wear a shoe factory, but we'll all run out of shoes if all the factories are gone.
> The market for entry-level programmers has already declined, but at least they were somewhat in demand and made reasonable salaries. Now what happens to post-docs who already make almost nothing and often get treated like crap?
Waiting for frontier labs to get into Political Science to show that SOTA models can be vastly better politicians...
I see all of this leading to a setup for: We did cure Cancer, everyone else (Healthcare, Gov., Rx) etc... has just not caught up or even worse; "you just don't have access top that model/version".
I have seen several times on HN recently how people don't see the impact of AI/more code etc... and I believe this is because its following the K-shape of the current economy.
At the top where most of us aren't but CAN see via stock market news etc...; they are making more money by adding efficiencies etc...
At the bottom; efficiencies are being applied at a scale that they could not before such that social and Gov. programs are more manageable and optimized at scale.
If individuals had power to allocate funding or not to public research projects rather than get a blanket tax, there would be a lot more conventional marketing in the public sector as well.
> Now what happens to post-docs who already make almost nothing and often get treated like crap?
This sort of discoveries are what gets postdocs funded lmao.
Every new idea like this creates several years worth of highly specialized work to test out derivative ideas, productizing it, and connecting dots to existing work.
> Now what happens to post-docs who already make almost nothing and often get treated like crap?
At least in the US, that particular brain drain has already been happening due to Trump's administration. The best of the best are exiting to other countries that will gladly have them, and then there will be far fewer people getting into the field. Science in general has taken a massive hit under the current administration and it going to take decades to fix if it's even possible.
I’m curious, what differentiates this from a preprint given the assumption it’s sufficient for publication? It didn’t read like marketing, they don’t seem to sell anything, and there's a link to a not-anthropic.com hosted paper.
Let's say "anything talking about your product is selling something instead of doing science"
Then we're faced with "why would a (insert whatever makes this a preprint) mean they're not selling something"? (well, at least OP is faced with that, FWIW I think there's ~infinite snarky replies available, but they're sort of uninteresting, no? :)
Well because it is not talking about your product that is what would've created the publication. But what is argued is the research should just be properly published. That publication would have been some advancement in enzyme research and not "Hey we pretend our fancy model created new research and we forget to mention that it was queried for weeks by experts in the field constantly correcting the model whenever it did something wrong until it resulted in something that the researchers could also have created on their own"
Tbh I might be misrepresenting the original post, because in this case I did not read it, but for your point I feel like I also don't have to
After I entertain you by doing that, is there a steelman version of my reply you're interested in entertaining me with, by replying? Or, just the strawman?
It's not odd at all. Every single "AI did this cool thing" type post is an Ad. Remember AI outputs slop and never produced anything valuable that wasn't heavily assisted by humans or is a lie.
This shows why biology is so much harder a problem area for LLMs than math, finding RTs is tedious but pretty doable today, they had to scope the problem down a lot from something that would be the equivalent of Navier Stokes in biology. Glad they’re doing it though, even if it’s just marketing.
This is something I like joking around about, with regard to how LLMs are 'decent' [debatable but taken as a premise] software engineers. For a long time people have said DNA/RNA/etc is the programming of life.
If it is indeed HIGHLY analogous to programming, we would then expect LLMs/future systems to be HIGHLY proficient at accurate ex-vivo gene [or enzyme/protein] modification/construction
It's really a matter of iterating on the problem and validation right?
Models make progress on coding and math because they can write tests and proofs to an extent. Many industries that are more 'physical' and require performing experiments lack that instant feedback loop. Find a way to close that loop and AI begins to look useful.
But try and convince companies to invest on closing that loop just to see if the current models work well on their problems or not? Tough sell.
So Anthropic just shows them, hey look, this is possible and if you don't do it I will.. so they fold.
Because their core product is not a long-term sustainable business strategy. Local hardware and models will continue to improve to the point of not needing the hosted solutions. And if you do need a hosted solution, remember that the big cloud providers already offer these solutions, so signing up for OpenAI/Anthropic _and_ AWS/GCP/Azure is not a sound business decision compared to just signing up with 1 of them that offers your cloud infra + GenAI infra. (Which is why the long-term benefits for cloud companies will probably be for the likes of AWS and not the likes of OpenAI).
They'll continue to burn money for marginal model improvements in the next few years all the while having no moat _and_ having Open-Weight / Local models eat their lunch.
The only way for them to stay relevant as a company is to expand beyond simply providing the models.
I'm old enough to remember the arrival of RDBMS, once IBM primed the space with DB2.
There was a pitched battle over features like row-level locking as competitors like Sybase, Ingress and Oracle scrapped it out. New features arrived on a monthly cadence, with immense engineering effort behind them. The winners (Oracle mostly) won a great moat which led to them to where they are today.
The fact that so many AI companies can produce amazing coding tools so quickly shows there is no moat, supporting your theory.
That is impossible to fund. At some point someone will decide to stop throwing money on the firepit that's the current business model and then hardware prices crash back to earth as 60-70% of the global demand disappears overnight.
It is more of a regulatory capture byproduct to prop up an artificial token driven Ponzi scheme.
There is a serious alternative to NVIDIA "AI" hardware dropping out of China in February 2027. There is no moat, but a whole lot of unpaid debts in the near future.
I honestly have no expert knowledge about this stuff. What I say is based only on intuition.
- China is heavily, heavily incentivised to enhance their own chip making
- Looking at the rate Chinas has expanded into just about every single other
space, and from quantity to quality, I just think it is impossible that they
don't compete on equal grounds pretty soon.
- I don't buy the insurmountable moat of TSMC
Reminiscent of tank warfare in WW2. The soviet T-34 was not remarkable in any particular way, but the sheer volumes it was produced in made it a very serious enemy to German tanks. As Stalin said "quantity has a quality all of its own".
The companies who control the compute resources will ~always control the greatest "amount" of intelligence. They can lease that intelligence out, or they can use it themselves. Currently the "total amount of intelligence" or perhaps "total amount of ability-to-do-stuff" is split between humans and machines at a ratio that means it still makes sense to lease the machine intelligence to the human intelligence - plus there are things that humans are still better at. In maybe 2 more years that will stop being true, due to the availability of more physical compute resources, and far greater model intelligence per unit compute. At that point, the point at which the substantial majority of ability-to-do-stuff is controlled by machine intelligence, then the entities who control all the compute will control all the ability-to-do-stuff, i.e. "the economy."
So I agree that the core product is not long-term sustainable as a product but this is because the whole world will look so different in the near future that the framing of intelligence as a "product" breaks down.
Open-Weight models, of course, are fine and useful, but if you have one million times less compute than your competitor (the lab), then you're not really playing the same game. You can only tackle the problems that they have decided they're not interested in.
A chatbot for cancer researchers to talk to is worth single-digit billions at most. Anthropic is already valued at over a trillion dollars, on the premise that they can replace the majority of jobs in most knowledge industries. All the announcements about hacking / math problems / biological science are meant to create the impression that that strategy works and is repeatable across industries.
Cancer research is a lot harder for LLMs than math millennium problems though, because there is no fast feedback loop to iterate on. Even if you have a really good idea based on a solid theoretical insight, doing the experiments using in-vitro/mice/monkeys/humans can take years or even decades. I have no doubt that AI will help find new avenues that boost certain parts of research in these fields, but I don't see a potential for a drastic change until we at the very least give LLMs a direct way to interact with lab equipment and train them using RL on it.
Yes, but initial discovery of molecules and novel mechanisms is massive. That was the last generational change in modern drug research was the movement to high throughput screening, going from the ability to screen 10's of molecules to hundreds of thousands to find 'hits'. Better and more focused models, especially ones trained internally at big pharma companies will accelerate that portion of the pipeline, or increase the hit rate of successful compounds. Several companies are already taking this approach like Novo has been. There are other more early stage companies like Recursion and others that are doing the same thing. They are more tech companies than traditional wet lab companies.
Sorry, yes I agree 100%. I don't agree with their narrative, I was just explaining it. I think it's fraudulent and based on science fiction and will lead to a significant economic crisis.
Our lab, located in the Bay Area, looks like a typical molecular biology lab. We do research that involves only the lower-levels of the biosafety risk level (BSL-1 and BSL-2) and we do not handle pathogens that can infect humans. All of the lab work is performed by human scientists. Although we’ve experimented with using AI to accelerate lab work with initiatives like the Model Hardware Standard, this approach is less conducive to the sort of ad hoc workflows that are involved in our molecular biology research.
Automated labs are far more challenging to build and run than most people appreciate. If I wanted to make progress quickly in discovery science, I would find good lab techs before building automated labs.
I'm confused of why this is a question. First of all everyone is doing something because it benefits them. You and I included. Second of all as long as it's a real discovery, it will be beneficial to us all eventually (after benefiting Anthropic for sure).
Perhaps you're not on HN long enough, but there have been many posts where someone bemoaned the lack of basic science research by corporations, that IBM and Microsoft were the only a few remaining companies with any science research. Guess what? they do it for their own benefits as well.
They do partner externally. This work is fundamental discovery science, rather than industrial research.
the folks who run anthropic grew up reading scifi with crazy awesome biotech. However, when they look at biotech today, it's just depressing. It's incredibly slow, it takes decadfes to prove out new technologies, and they figure with this new tool, they can just point it at problems and have it emit discoveries. If they show a few high-impact discoveries, that makes a case for them to move biotech forward much faster than its current progress.
Also, anthropic has so much capitalization right now that it's simply easiest to invest it in a wide portfolio that includes both internal and external research.
Who, you may ask, would take that money? People like business influencer Megan Lieu, who chose not to disclose just how much she'd made from her AI deals, but says her biggest sponsorship to date has been with Anthropic (makers of Claude), as well as that her biggest sponsored contracts (for any client) are normally around the $30,000 mark.
That isn’t actually the point, the point is that the AI companies should be made to see that doing things for society is the only way they get any kudos.
If they want to compete to be seen as the good guy, by all means let them. But it means actually having to be the good guy, in at least some respects.
I was actually thinking the other day that it makes perfect sense for AI companies to develop a professional services oriented software development arm. Imagine that you want to develop a training pipeline for "tasteful" programming: you might make a reward metric for that does some obvious stuff (nothing that anyone could easily agree is a bug like a crash, good performance, perhaps minimize LoC), but you really want to also want to also track "bugs" where the feature was discovered to be missing some unspecified nuance that was only discovered through product use, or train on ability to keep a small codebase while also keeping diffs small (essentially, "maintainability") as real new requirements come in.
So then you want a training set full of real product requirements and product evolution, which is something you could get if you offered custom software development, with a lot more control than you'd get trying to do the same by scraping random FOSS projects on github.
Other industries are perhaps similar. If you offer a service directly, you have much more ability to build collection of training data into the process. Want to make the best law bot? Buy a law firm, offer legal services, and integrate extremely deeply into their workflows. If their models turn out to be as good as they hype up, they should be able to scale to be a major player in any endeavor they move into with a relatively small number of staff and develop a strong feedback loop (not that that would be good for the rest of us).
If your core service is getting more expensive to provide and competitors are busy eating your margins, why let someone else taste your secret sauce and only get paid for the tokens, when you can keep the good stuff (bio capability) for yourself, and net both the profit and the fame?
> I’m confused why AI companies are using agents in-house for this type of research instead of partnering externally.
As an outsider, here is how I explain that behavior:
1. Truly risky models are very useful.
2. Truly risky models should not be released, according to AI safety standards. I think Antrhopic genuinely believes in AI safety. (see: standing up against automated kill chains, no matter the impacts to the company)
3. Truly risky models face regulatory pressures, if released to the public.
This all leads to "let's just do this in-house." I believe that might end up being the answer to every application of AI eventually. It seems unavoidable, and very depressing.
Lands as an active threat. Maybe they're serious about this research or not, but for sure medical companies doing this sort of research will consider upping their AI budget and connecting their labs, etc. to avoid "falling behind".
So, the AI labs benefit either from achieving something they could market or from the peer-pressure imposed to companies in the sectors they get their nose in.
I think the "everything company" vision has become apparent for a while now. Doesn't even have to be sinister - I think Anthropic simply believes on one else can be trusted with this power. Another point of leverage they have is that they can keep their internal models for themselves.
I run into this all the time - we have such powerful functionality available to our users, and further we provide the elements that undergird all of it, so it’s totally possible for clients to take the services they buy from us and reconfigure them to make their own tools, better even than the ones we have built, purpose-built for their workflows…
And 9/10 clients will just click on the one thing they know and recognize and are familiar with and comfortable with… and then stop thinking about it.
It’s crazy how much of our job is not only building our product, but interrogating our clients over what they need, so we can demonstrate how our tools solve their problem. The users simply are not interested in figuring it out for themselves.
This is my speculation as well. For the time being, knowing how to use Claude extremely effectively probably beats out industry insider status. And Anthropic can attract whatever expertise it needs to build scrappy research teams in house. I'm guessing this kind of work doesn't need 100+ people, maybe just a dozen highly specialized people.
Given the prestige of the AI labs, the recent explosion of math proofs, the literal millions they can throw around, it seems very likely they can attract then fund small research projects across a broad range of science. And like startup math, it only takes one or two ground breaking results from a hundred attempts to pay back in the PR/hype.
"We gave Claude a prompt to search through a massive database of DNA sequences for interesting new examples of RTs. Our involvement was limited to the initial prompt and the lab work, while Claude agents combed through the database, investigated the distinct RT families, and used their own judgement to identify interesting candidates. After 21 hours spent searching this data by roughly 950 agents using 210 million tokens, one of the agents spotted something remarkable: a repeating pattern of DNA sequences that occurs next to the gene for an odd-looking RT. After further analysis and testing in our lab, we recognized that this pattern marked a previously uncharacterized enzyme system found in bacteriophages (the viruses that infect bacteria) that we call array-associated reverse transcriptases (ART)."
I recently heard Anthropic quietly setup its own bio lab.
That it’s plausible that they’ll move from selling tokens as their primary source of revenue to building frontier models to do cutting edge research, and using the research as their primary source of revenue rather than release the models. Because it’ll be far less of a race to the bottom than commodified tokens used by the general public.
Will be interesting to see how this all unfolds. (No pun intended, but there is a funny one there…)
Yea, I think that there's pretty much a ceiling with day-to-day models that have already been hit months ago. Maybe you need SOTA for reviews, high-level planning, or research, but long running tasks like writing out a feature, testing, getting feedback and making refactors can be done for low-end models (like luna). And the margins on those models are basically evaporating.
apparently big labs are also pitching profit sharing arrangements to biopharma companies in exchange for privileged access to the top internal above-the-api capability models .... repeat this in every industrial vertical and it could turn out that much denied Dario claim may as well have been true for all intents and purposes
I mean its what universities have done for years haven't they?
Never really wondered what financial relationship between research hospitals that participate in drug trials and pharma companies is, but now I'm wondering...
So they're already threatening their customers Amazon-style?
Excellent. Now every pharma company, plus any kind of company that wants to own a market through innovation, will need a "world-class" AI research team that actually has spectacular AI budgets.
It's clear Dario believes that the solution to AI's PR problem is to cure cancer. Or invent other revolutionary medical treatments. They're going to heavily promote every step along the way no matter how small or far away from commercialization they are, like this one.
No doubt that curing cancer would help, but I think the timeline might be a little too long. Even RSI AGI will not be able to get new medical treatments to market instantly. Real world testing takes a long time and is an unavoidable part of the process.
Your comment is vacuous. There isn’t any other part of the picture. Trying to advance medicine is inherently good. It doesn’t matter how much you use it for marketing. None of what they have done is fake or useless, it is at worst early.
Glad to hear how you feel about it. However, and this applies more generally than your comment above, what people online often forget is that there is such a thing as both positive and negative reinforcement. If you don’t reinforce good behaviours as well as denouncing bad ones, then you don’t get good outcomes.
Dario would like to ‘cure’ aging. He’s got some personal experience with bad illnesses, but aging isn’t that. I also have reduced trust for people who want to live forever and don’t have kids.
> I also have reduced trust for people who want to live forever and don’t have kids.
I want to live forever (or until I'm bored of it) and I don't have kids. I'm not sure what that has to do with trustworthiness.
Edit: And, you're saying you want to die. Is that more trustworthy than not wanting to die? I suppose if you are religious, you might believe you're going somewhere good when you die, in which case, you don't actually believe death exists, so we're having different conversations. I believe death exists and is permanent, and I'd like to not do that.
Not Op but there’s a inch of people asking why, and I have a similar feeling to op so here’s my post hoc justification for a weakly held and poorly supported prejudice:
It’s really because statistically, in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without. This is more in description than judgement, but it’s true in my experience. We can speculate as to reasons, but looking after kids does train a certain kind of selflessness. Agreed we might be doing it for ultimately selfish reasons (self presentational or for care in old age or whatever). But for a good chunk of the time, caring for kids seems to require the fairly consistent subjugation of personal preferences, and a degeee of perspective taking, that I just think people without kids don’t have. And that often shows in their interactions at work and in daily life. Obviously there are myriad exceptions. But it’s true enough in my experience.
The wanting to live forever part also seems weird to me, and correlated with a certain sort of self regarding perspective. It seems obvious to me that I (or my generations) need to die for my children and grandchildren to have a good life. To try and subvert that also seems selfish or self important somehow.
I’m not really arguing this is a correct or good or just position. It might be terrible! But it did resonate..
> It’s really because statistically, in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without.
I've witnessed the opposite: Having kids made people much more selfish. Resources were plenty before they had kids, so they would spend a lot (time and money) on others - be it friends or the general public.
When kids come along, two things happen:
1. Resources are limited, so a lot less goes outside the family.
2. At least one parent will put the foot down when being generous to people outside the family - even if the wealth/income supports being able to do so. Tribalism sets in.
Paying full taxes to support a society where people with kids pay less taxes and receive more benefits from the State is certainly not selfish. That's the case in my country, at least.
Money is not the only way one can contribute to one's society. Doubling the amount of productive people to society is also a big contribution.
Even from a purely financial perspective you need to count all of the future taxes that will be collected from the family lineage instead of just from the one person who ended his lineage.
> It’s really because statistically, in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without.
That would certainly be your opinion. I think the ultimate selflessness in a world being more and more damaged by humans would to elect not to perpetuate the species, and help try to leave the world a better place for those who do choose to have kids.
That's an absurdly selfish position. You're taking a stance that not existing is superior to living in the future, all the while living in the world yourself. Might as well advocate for nuclear genocide.
The flaw in that ideology is that everyone relies on the next generation for care in their old age. Taking advantage of the future generation without contributing to raising it isn't selfless in the slightest.
If you live in a developed country you probably already have a demographic crisis. Not having kids is hurting the next generation, not helping.
> I want to live forever (or until I'm bored of it) and I don't have kids. I'm not sure what that has to do with trustworthiness.
When I hear people say stuff like this, I hear that they want to remove the single most universal chesterton's fence in all of living systems. I hear them take pride in their/our hubris, and demonstrate willingness to put the whole multiplex ecology of life at risk because they believe themselves/us to be more clever than thermodynamic evolution.
Biological singletons (outside very specific niche situations) are not meant to persist, and most anything that has tried, it has simply been selected out of the lineage. This constraint (which we don't understand yet) is presumably the whole reason why biology discovered and moved into the more ephemeral higher-order substrate of thought and culture.
Chesterton's fence implies intention, a will, a decision to stand up the fence. I don't believe in gods, so my existence and its length were determined by a series of accidents. It isn't right or wrong or even optimal, it's just the traits that survived thus far.
It isn't even a rule of biology. There are living things with much longer lifespans than humans, some even effectively immortal (absent predation or accident or climate change).
Your language implies you believe in a creator of some sort, something making decisions about how things should be. You've called it "biology", but "biology" doesn't "discover" or have a "reason" for doing things.
> I hear them take pride in their/our hubris, and demonstrate willingness to put the whole multiplex ecology of life at risk because they believe themselves/us to be more clever than thermodynamic evolution.
I hear you taking pride in accepting death on a quite short timespan as a necessity, and hubris that one individual living longer puts "the whole multiplex ecology of life at risk".
We have already disconnected from evolution, to a large degree. Many people who would have died in childhood a couple hundred years ago now survive to adulthood and procreation.
Should we stop vaccinating children because they were supposed to die to protect the delicate balance? Surely it is hubris to prevent their deaths when evolution and biology discovered polio and smallpox to kill and maim them? If there is a biological Chesterton's fence it is probably sitting somewhere around five years old and half of people wouldn't make it past it.
How could it not? Chesterton's fence asks the question, "Why was it put there?" Without a will you can only answer "how was it put there" and not "why".
There is an assumption of correctness in the argument that "we must die because we do die". It's tautology. That doesn't comport with my understanding of how we got here, and I don't believe there is an answer to "why" we are here, beyond the meaning we make of our own lives. If our 70-90 year lifespan (if we're lucky and aren't struck down younger) is an evolutionary accident, and I believe it is, then extending that lifespan is Good, Actually.
As one obvious example, evolution is not agentic but still answers "why" questions.
"Why do we have a heart" "Why do we sweat", etc.
But Chesterton's fence is often used in an even MORE generalized way than just that, not "why is it there" but "what are we not seeing about how this connects to everything else"
As an example, eradicating mosquitos. We see many obvious reasons why it might be good, we can even see that they don't seem that important in the food chain, but it would be hubris to assume we understand every potential connection they have to world ecology.
I don't have kids. I have not caused a need for me to die to make room or to be "replaced" (though "overpopulation" arguments are often eugenicist and/or racist propaganda, and don't engage with actual density/agricultural limits, so I'm hesitant to make any arguments based on whether there is room for people to not die).
How can you want for other people what you don't want for yourself? Why should other people die, for example of cancer, when having the chance I'll opt for the cure?
I think there's a nuance gap here. Many of us, if offered, would be happy to live for a a millennium or two if we'd stay at worst middle-aged. But there's a giant gap between being willing to take that offer if given, and a desire for it being a big personal motivating factor.
Don't worry, all these people moralising on the importance of aging and dying will do their utmost to live longer and in better health whenever the time of the choice comes. No one will say "oh well I guess I'll just keep this illness because that's the natural course of things"- they will get the medicines and the surgery, the creams and the lotions, they'll jog and limit exposure to the sun and avoid smoking and drinking. Given the choice, unless incurably ill or in the depth of despair, they'll always choose life. At least for themselves.
On a personal level it would be demoralizing to see some billionaires live multiple lifetimes, but only a tad more demoralizing than seeing the wealth disparity we already have and the changing line of idiot faces at the top.
Well, sure, but there are solutions to those particular billionaires. We don't have any politicians I'm aware of that are willing to consider those solutions, but they exist. Societies, including the US (to some degree), have solved the problem of oligarchs in the past through various means. We can do it again, and should consider all the options.
especially given how they fund their billions from 401k through rapid inclusion into indexes, building DCs near residential areas, stealing IP, regulatory capture and hype driving manipulations.
Aging is one of the only real equalisers. Maybe the greatest equaliser. Though those that have become old seemed to have become more stubborn in holding on to power but even that will pass.
"Gods are immortal" does not imply "immortals are god" though. Like the movies showed us, you could always just cut off their heads. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
Probably should have left off the kids, but lets start with just distrusting anybody who wants to live forever. At the level of influence billionaires have, it is downright dangerous.
For everyone else confused: Think of all the people throughout history we would prefer would not have lived forever. Then multiple that by A LOT. Then consider how greedy and sociopathic most of the billionaire class is already.
Now, we could spend time getting distracted by childless. I don't think it matters.
Fundamentally the problem with living forever goes beyond billionaires. People get stuck in their ways of thinking, the mindset of living forever is completely different. Why should I even listen to someone who only lives a mere 40 years? What is a suitable punishment for someone that lives forever? How does it change murder?
Philosophically, living forever may be corrupt by nature.
The only way to tear down tiers of society is for some of those tiers to literally die off.
Why? Who in their right mind would have children in 2026? Everything is burning, gone to shit, and projected to get worse. Having children is insanely irresponsible.
Please. Every single age of humanity, there have been hardships. It was actually much worse before: Diseases galore, famine, pests, wars. You're severely negatively biased as is a lot of other people I've seen.
What's funny about this attitude is that people were having a lot of children when half of them died in their childhood and for those left there were famines, pestilences, wars, no painkillers or anesthesia and no medicines for anything.
The reality is that we don't make many children because our life is way too comfortable for that.
Spoken like someone terminally online & without children. If this is your view of reality (I believe it is an utter fiction but nonetheless), then I don't know how you propose things to be improved without smart people procreating.
Cancer can be cured in a lot of cases, its just so damn expensive and the treatment is beyond torturous that some patients cannot handle it. Stem cells are amazing. But we need cheaper technology to replicate them into the cancer destroyers they need to be, as well as find ways to ease the pain of that internal battle.
Please tell me more about these “cures” you speak of. Because to my knowledge, yes we are good at getting patients into remission, we do not have “cures”
Coupled with the fact that treatment is often life altering in and of itself
We also have therapies based on monoclonal recombinant antibodies conjugated with chemotherapeutics. Simply put, we can produce antibodies that are specific for markers present in the surface of cancer cells, and we can attach drugs that can kill those cells. The antibody part is what makes this type of therapy very effective (you target only cancer cells, and not healthy cells) and also very expensive.
Semantics. Cancer is uncontrolled growth of cells. Treating it is killing/removing the cancer cells. Problem of course is you are never sure if you got all of them. If you got all of them you are “cured”. If you didn’t you are not cured in case the remaining cells manage to grow and spread again. We don’t talk about “cure” because of course it is impossible to verify if 100% is gone or not.
Why is it 'of course impossible'? Couldn't we someday have nanobots or other tech that could screen all your cells and be able to indicate whether any cancerous cells remain?
If we were able to find cancer cells with a precision down to 1 cell, killing them would be trivial. There are lots of cells in a person. It's possible we will get there someday. I think bioengineering is the most likely route. I.e., design a virus to specifically target the type of cancer cell you mean to eradicate.
Strictly speaking, no impossible from our understanding of physics, but also an enormous scientific and engineering problem. research into that would take away from people working on more reasonable approaches today.
No. It's hard to get even small molecules where we want them in the body, there's no way that the gigantic molecular clusters called "nanobots" could reliably get access to every single cell. (What may be possible is using things like the Moderna cancer vaccine to make your body an inhospitable environment for the growth and multiplication of the cancer cells.)
I don't know about "cured" but I've been cancer free for something like ~27 years.
With childhood cancers some of them have very high rates of "cure," but it is true that the impact of the treatments (at that time at least) follows you for life in various ways. The more modern immunotherapies and such seem potentially much better than chemo if they can be turned into successful and consistent approaches.
Burn (radiation). Cut. Poison (chemo). Your picks for cancer. IMHO Eat less. Remove all sugar and vitamins. Go a week without food. Give your body time to kill the weak cancer cells before they grow exponentially.
Yep, my prediction is that Anthropic is going to use Claude's reputation to "launder" known solutions to aging, cancer, and other things that society hasn't accepted quite yet. But maybe with the right marketing we'll try those things!
As they should because things like this get people thinking even if it something small. Once you get people thinking about things you tend to get solutions.
Also the general public might find the implications of AGI so distasteful even if everything goes well that we might stall out or get the Butlerian Jihad before we can cure cancer. Artists and Software Engineers, now also Mathematicians, already have existential crises, but the public still thinks AI is fake. I can't imagine the backlash when the realize what's coming even in the good ending.
Real world approvals for drugs are accelerating through, even with all the steps. Think about it, Moderna went from zero, to approved vaccine in 10 months. While COVID vaccines were the exception, not the rule, there are ways to accelerate the process if there is will and $$$. In the last 20 years, the number of new drug approvals per year in the US has doubled, and the length of time to get approval has been cut in half.
Its going to be an uphill battle. Every story about job losses, consequences to the community from building a datacenter (real or perceived), eminent domain case that blows up, plus all the slop on every platform. Not to mention a lot of normies think techbros are obnoxious, and that is who is hyping ai.
They'll need to show their goal is to help humanity and that all the other peoole arent acceptable collateral damage. Since those other people get to vote.
> Even RSI will not be able to get new medical treatments to market instantly. Real world testing takes a long time and is an unavoidable part of the process.
>> the solution to AI's PR problem is to cure cancer
I think its much simpler than that.
Anything actually useful for people would be a good solution.
Obviously image gen and code gen is not the case, as though it does increase productivity, it doesn't make anyone's life actually better. If it led to 4 day work week - sure. Otherwise it could easily be net negative.
I am already having a headache thinking of the whining from the biologist community (if any? I hope their reaction is not as extreme as that of mathematicians).
Given his background (biophysics PhD, postdoc at Stanford School of Medicine) and that medicine was the core of Machines of Loving Grace back in 2024 it reads less like PR and more like a long-held goal, no? Personally I'm actually surprised it took so long.
Agree trials won't compress much with AI in the near future. But they're starting with basic discovery rather than therapeutics – that part can move fast.
I'd also judge it less by what result is and more by the rate of change – even a year ago ~1k agents running ~1d on single prompt producing wet-lab-verifiable leads wasn't really a thing.
You can't say this. We have no idea. There is nothing about the law of physics that pushes cancer cure a long time away. A lot of people would have told you AI was decades away, yet here we are. We are still on track for possible strong take off.
Now on real world testing, you think the rule applies? I tell you it doesn't. Human life might be precious, but human life in practice is also not precious. We waste so much of it. In some countries regulations will stop/slow it, but there are plenty of places around the world that will turn a blind eye for a fistful of dollars. Countries will go to those locations if it means gaining an edge.
There are many laws of physics that say that cures for cancer- general ones that treat a wide array of cancers and are effectively permanent with no reoccurrence- are a long time away. Cancer is subtle. Cancer is wily. Cancer is tightly integrated with our eukaryotic nature.
AI was decades away, for decades! It took a wide range of conditions to be satisfied before it became clear it was a powerful tool.
Also, medical people rarely use the term "cure cancer", as we have too much experience with recurrence of the "same" cancer (not just in the same location, but a genetic descendent of the original cancer).
There are many things about the laws of physics that push a cancer cure a long time away! Biology is downstream of physics, and the biology of cancer is so vast that the very concept of a "cure for cancer" is almost nonsensical.
Appeals to laws of physics as a "first principles" attempt to explain how thousands of diverse diseases could theoretically be solved overnight by a big computer (while hand waving away the years of clinical trials, false starts and failures involved in a single new successful treatment) just makes you seem wildly out of touch and uninformed about the actual problem space.
There's a lot about biology that makes cancer fundamentally hard to treat, and the efficacy of cancer treatments fundamentally hard to measure. I'm optimistic that we'll eventually get to a point where we can meaningfully say we "cured cancer", but it will almost certainly be a cluster of thousands of treatment protocols which each have to be tested over 5-10 years for recurrence. There's no reason to expect that there should exist any broad-spectrum cancer treatment better than radiotherapy, or any fast test to determine whether long-term remission will be achieved.
Very cool! However, the amazing absence of results makes me question whether they've got a Nature letter forthcoming or whether they know that another AI lab has a similar finding...
Thank you for sharing, that provided some good context for how to interpret this
Post content:
_____
I wish we didn’t need these again, but here is the honest version of Anthropic’s biology announcement
(Caveat: I haven’t worked in bioinformatics for many years.)
The good: Anthropic ran ~950 Claude agents over a large biological sequence database. Claude searched, wrote code, compared sequences and genomic neighborhoods, and found an interesting pattern that apparently had not been noticed before: a known reverse transcriptase associated with another gene and a repetitive DNA array.
That is cool. Automating this kind of open-ended bioinformatics search at scale is useful, and Claude may have found a lead a human would have missed.
But: Claude did not do a biological experiment. It searched databases and analyzed data.
Humans then took the candidate into the wet lab. And the wet-lab result so far is modest: they showed that the repeat array produces short RNAs.
We still don’t know what the system does. No function, mechanism, phenotype, targeting, defense activity, or programmability has been demonstrated.
This is also where the CRISPR framing gets ahead of the result. Right now, “it has some features reminiscent of known programmable systems” is a hypothesis for what to investigate next, not a discovery that it behaves like CRISPR.
And there is a missing baseline: bioinformatics has had tools for finding unusual gene neighborhoods and candidate systems for years. The interesting comparison is 950 Claude agents vs. an expert using the best existing computational pipelines - not Claude vs. someone manually looking through 200,000 sequences.
So my honest announcement would be:
Claude autonomously found an interesting candidate for a previously uncharacterized biological system. A small human wet-lab experiment confirmed that part of the candidate is expressed. We don’t yet know what it does.
That is a good result.
But in a regular biology lab, this isn’t the finished paper. It is the result you show at lab meeting and say: “This looks interesting. Now we need to figure out what the hell it does.”
Maybe that next step leads to a major discovery. But that discovery hasn’t happened yet.
100% AI per Pangram. I caught it at "This is also where the CRISPR framing gets ahead of the result." -- somehow this is not a sentence anybody non-obnoxious would write. It's a weird structure where the AI talks about something specific as if it were an example of a common theme. This paragraph is an even clearer ekample:
"But in a regular biology lab, this isn’t the finished paper. It is the result you show at lab meeting and say: “This looks interesting. Now we need to figure out what the hell it does.”"
I am irked by the CRISPR framing. That seems to be IPO positioning.
Good hypotheses are a dime a dozen in life sciences. Biology is very unforgiving and most hypotheses lead to nothing when thoroughly tested. This is true for something as "simple" as enzymes as in this case, but even more true for curing diseases. Otherwise, there would not be any failures of phase III clinical trials, after billions USD spent on preclinical research and prior clinical trials.
When overinterpreting these (interesting) results, you are entering Andy Grove Fallacy [0] territory very fast.
He was a PhD student. He knows the significance level of this result. He knows that if he had walked into Bill’s office (his advisor) with “we found an interesting system, but we still don’t know what it does” and said he was ready to graduate, Bill would have kicked him out of the room.
But somehow, when the IPO is around the corner, this becomes “AI is starting to drive biological discovery.”
I'm sorry but this would be a mediocre paper at best. And if this were a student presenting this for a qualifying exam, you can bet a committee would be ripping them a new one for presenting this with no understanding of what it does.
The pre print clearly states it’s a well defined problem limited by the man hours required to sift through the data. I think everyone knows it’s not setting the world alight?
There are so many people involved on this yet we still say things like "Claude did", we need to start waking up and being more real about how we are still in "AI + Human" land.
What's wrong with saying "A team of researchers backed by Anthropic using Claude discovers a novel enzyme system with CRISPR-like repeats" or, ffs, mention the lead researcher in the headline?
It looks like the researchers just wrote the agentic harness and the rest of the work really was done autonomously by Claude with only extremely limited guidance after.
BTW the first author of the paper worked in the Doudna lab studying the origins of crispr (and after their PhD, joined Anthropic). All of the authors either have, or are going to have, excellent careers. I dont' think they are worried about attribution.
I'm more annoyed that they announce "CRISPR-like" to hit those SV Next Big Thing dopamine receptors but upon reading haven't done any laboratory work to determine if it has any useful applications like CRISPR-Cas9.
It's totally legitimate research worthy of publication, but Anthropic chose a hot technology in the popular imagination for a reason. Now I'm going to have to see "Claude invented a new CRISPR in 24 hours!" everywhere and trying to correct it will just turn into repetitive arguments about goalposts moving....
OpenAI/Anthropic have never pitched themselves as a replacement for farmers. They do explicitly say that they're going to cause significant job loss in knowledge work sectors all the time.
Right - I'm saying that you can greatly improve productivity / reduce employment while still having humans in the loop. We've already seen it happen with farming, from 1900 -> present.
At a trade show, I met a company that was advertising a feature as powered by Claude. I asked an employee what that meant, as it seemed unlikely, and he then didn’t know how answer so he introduced me to the CEO. The CEO said that the ad meant that Claude now writes all of their code including that new feature. They are now working on having Claude handle their QA process. I wondered if any of the devs were at the booth or if the employee I spoke to first was a dev who knew it was bs.
yes and no; you cant dump DNA in the context window and call it a day, in the blog post it was a common tool calling session. you do can have actual ml models for that, that the llm could use as a tool.
I don't think you quite understand the loops here.
At Google/OpenAI/Anthropic level you have clusters of LLM agents working with clusters of ML agents doing all kinds of tasks. A lot of this falls into proto-RSI where the LLM can improve the ML agents output based on analysis of said ML.
This isn't much different from how people work, you can't dump even part of DNA context in a human mind and get anything useful out. We has humans have to use and build tools to find answers because of scaling efficiencies of different computation types.
Was he paid to review the paper? His praise reads very unauthentic.
> After reviewing the pre-print, Feng Zhang, one of the pioneers of CRISPR genome editing and a professor at MIT and the Broad Institute said:
> This is an exciting example of how AI agents can contribute to biological discovery. The identification of RNA-repeat arrays associated with reverse transcriptases is genuinely intriguing and merits further investigation. I hope this work encourages more scientists to explore how AI can support their research.
This is great, but I can't help but wonder if we're going to have another post next week with a lab complaining that they were about to publish this same finding, and they had Claude proofread their paper, and whoops how'd that get into Anthropic's training data?
I wonder how long it will take for the damage Alpöge and Buckmaster have done to the perception of these AI-driven scientific developments to fade.
Not saying that they were right or wrong, but that single moment sullied all AI-driven breakthroughs that came after it, and I don't think it was ever particularly relevant, at least not nearly to the degree that it was presented in the media. But I guess it ended up being a convenient outlet for AI anxiety in the end.
I don't think of this stuff in terms of AI anxiety, I just think that the AI labs should be falling all over themselves to display deference and humility to those who made it possible.
The LLMs that make this stuff possible weren't created by the AI labs from whole cloth. They crept up and jumped onto the shoulders of giants, basically the collected (non-consensually, of course, but jingles keys look at this pelican riding a bicycle!) works of humanity. Every discovery LLMs enumerate in this fashion rightfully needs to have a billboard-sized asterisk regarding the provenance of the discovery. "Claude" didn't discover this, everyone who worked to produce the internet that Anthropic siphoned into their dataset belongs on the credits.
It's great that it happened, and I wish them the best of luck in using our work to make the world a better place. Just don't forget who the rightful owners are.
The AI labs did that to themselves. All those billions and their marketing and communication skills are like those of a local street vendor selling fake knockoffs.
I'm not going to say that it is absolutely Earth shattering (not that they claim that), but your comment is obviously wrong. In the paper they show experimental results where they express some of the proteins and show a phenotypic effect. They don't claim an exact function either, and are relatively restrained on the biology end of things. I fail to see how it is at the level of a vague shower thought.
> Anthropic’s head of influencer, Lexie Barnhorn, has described creators as essential to building trust in complicated technical products. Its strategy is partly consumer-to-business: People who adopt Claude personally may later introduce it in their workplaces.
> Anthropic’s best-known creator events have been smaller dinners and pop-ups in which Claude remained the ostensible subject.
The point I am making is if these companies are going to compete and spend more and more money for PR, then they should do it in a way that benefits society, which paying influencers does not do.
Let me know when OpenAI starts actively trying to cure diseases.
Personally I feel like Anthropic is underrepresented in "normie" marketing, all of my non-tech savy friends only know of ChatGPT and use "ChatGPT" in the same way my mom says "Nintendo" when talking about game consoles
Aren't there unlimited mechanisms like this? Isn't this why Doudna isn't a billionaire (you can patent something, but it's easy to create another one and patent it separately)?
I wish we could discuss this in a way that didn't immediately devolve into people shouting up or shouting down that this is either meaningless or singularity.
Caveating I'm not a biologist, but my understanding of the way this kind of thing works right now is a basic three-step process:
1) Find molecules and DNA/RNA sequences in the wild and catalog them.
2) Discover interesting subsequences among these.
3) Figure out whether any useful applications can come from what was discovered.
All three of these generally take a long time. Systematic automatic analysis of known databases speeds up and removes some of the luck from 2. But 1 and 3 are still long poles. 1 has the further issue that we usually discover these in existing organisms. I recall much of the outcry over tropical deforestation back in the 90s and replacing of rainforests with palm oil monoculture today is that the vast majority of terrestrial biodiversity is found in rainforests, and destroying them at industrial scale risks losing potentially useful molecules forever. 3 has the problem that you need to conduct physical experiments, and are limited by the speed of biochemical reactions no matter what and by the speed at which human subjects can be found and ethically experimented on assuming we care about being ethical.
A lot of good can come of this, but I don't see a path to singularity here, assuming we're talking the original Kurzweil meaning there of all technological progress that will ever happen all happening at once. Data collection and experimentation on living subjects, human or not, can only happen so fast, regardless of automation. It's not computational. Whenever you have to interface with the real world, you're now working at the speed of the real world, not the speed of electricity. CRISPR was discovered in 1987 and first used to edit a gene sequence in a human zygote in 2015. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to make the candidate discovery to human application step not take three decades, but it's never going to be three months, either.
The study results themselves aren't really dangerous in any way I can see. This is basic microbiology, and not necessarily some kind of major breakthrough that will change the world on its own. It's possible this leads to something big like CRISPR, but most likely not. The work is more the case of noticing something that someone hasn't noticed yet. It would have gotten noticed eventually, they just did it before someone else did (assuming they didn't get a hint somehow).
A lot of molecular biology is noticing something that you can't explain or that seems weird and might be interesting. Once it's noticed the followup is often fairly straightforward and it either pans out or it doesn't. The exciting/scary/unlikely part is that the LLM on its own recognized something as being important to follow up.
From my skim of the paper, the work could only be done by someone with a pretty good understanding of the biology and an extremely good understanding of how to use LLMs and agents. LLMs are not going to take over biology yet.
The singularity, as defined by Hinton (and others) as RSI (Recursive Self Improvement) may actually be beginning already, as OpenAI has announced an AI acting as a "research intern" (!).
How is this different from arguing that Microsoft Clippy was RSI? An AI tool being involved in the process of work can't be the bar for RSI.
I don't think there can be a coherent definition of RSI unless people lay out their theory for how intelligence scales. LLM-assisted coding is great but respectfully optimizing pytorch features or whatever is not gonna lead to exponential improvements. That approach to scaling diminished years ago, leading all the labs to switch to reasoning.
Now it seems reasoning is also yielding diminishing returns, so all the labs are pivoting to specializing in particular fields like math / infosec / biology. They're improving due to accessing new proprietary training data and doing RL with human experts. Again I don't really see any amount of "AI research interns" leading to an exponential improvement to this strategy, they're not the bottleneck in the first place.
> Now it seems reasoning is also yielding diminishing returns
Not true. On the contrary, LLMs are developing faster than predicted. They were expected to solve a Millennium Prize by 2030... and here we are in 2026. Release cycles are getting faster. Just compare the most recent GPT or Claude with what they were an year ago.
> How is this different from arguing that Microsoft Clippy was RSI?
We can argue about semantics, but that's not really the point. The point is that what started now - which no doubt is in its infancy - will result in full autonomy quite soon (they project an year or so), with the risk of RSI causing agent development to slip (long term) outside human cognitive control/capacity.
Again, can you lay out your theory for how intelligence scales? You're using a lot of terms like "full autonomy" without definitions. Why do you think that just throwing more harnessed LLMs at (something?) will lead to an increase rate of improvement?
I feel like I laid out several cases where other things were the limiting factor on improvement and more agents wouldn't have helped, and I didn't get a response to those cases.
What "they project" (the labs) is of minor interest to me. Aside from their incentives and track record of lying, in recent months they are laying out a story that is pretty much just the plot of Terminator, and directly referencing rationalist beliefs that were published long before LLMs even existed.
Self improvement during training, and AI self training are already happening. Easily/quickly are seemingly a factor of how much power/hardware you want to use at once.
With the level of compute they have they aren't stuck with frozen models like you are.
If by now you still think it's all just hype, it's safe to say you've succumbed to a mind virus that renders you unable to think critically about AI. Otherwise you'd have some level of awareness of just how far this technology has developed, and you should find these developments more than plausible.
> While combing through the raw DNA sequence near the RT, the agent exclaimed: “[The DNA next to the RT] is spectacular: I can see by eye a tandem repeat array … that's a CRISPR-like … repeat array?!”
I love that with AI discoveries, we can relive the discoveries from agent transcripts like this.
I'm sort of imagining future histories involving notable AI events peppered with direct quotes like these.
"I can see by eye ..." ??
that's a new one hah
As infuriating as AI generated prose can be to read, I agree; I do enjoy these sorts of "realizations" in reasoning traces and stuff.
I don't understand how an LLM is able to reason about those things
LLM use language, but it can't "think" about biochemistry
I saw that LLM have reasoning capabilities, which is different from machine learning, but I don't understand how it works.
Intelligence as a measure of the ability to define predictive models of certain problems (and their solutions).
Promoting LLMs is encoding the problem we want into the query vectors, and through the magic of the complex training and the power of operations in a very large dimensional abstract space the AI can manipulate the representations, and iteratively approximate solutions. (And using bigger and bigger contexts and better encodings it can form better models.)
Nobody knows how it works, really. It just turned out that if you try to predict the next word then you get intelligent behavior, depending on amount of training data, and the size and topology of the network. But again, nobody knows why, and what the limits are.
Compression and understanding are correlated.
How do you think? I think with words.
Do you have an internal monologue?
I don't. I seem to think at a more abstract, pre-verbal level rather than through an internal voice.
Some studies suggest that frequent internal monologue may occur in roughly 30–50% of people [1], but the research is based on relatively small samples.
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/intersections/202304...
How do you know that it's the words driving the thinking, rather than the stream of words just being an observable trace tacked onto the actual thinking?
My friend has aphantasia and cannot think with words, sounds, or pictures.
AI is way beyond conventional LLM architecture now. It combines LLMs with search + RL. The traditional LLM architecture hit a wall around GPT-4o. Arc AGI evals show this.
All that extra is clear as day compared to the mystery of how neural network training decides to divide and balance the weights in even small neutral networks.
We can, at best, approach a good set of weights, even in tiny neural networks.
Imagine if we found a way to calculate the exact optimal weights for a given loss function. I mean, there is an exact optimal solution, it exists, but we can't find it exactly, even for a neural network with just 50 parameters.
There is no point in that because the loss function itself is already an approximation. No one knows what is the exact loss function for any given non-trivial real-world task.
Granted, I feel like munging gigabytes of text data (i.e. G, A, T and Cs) would be something LLMs would be good at
I imagine it's writing a story about a character doing those things and then reading the story and acting on it.
I don't think anyone knows, not even the LLMs.
I mean, the subtlety of the neural network weights that emerge from training are not fully comprehended by anyone, man or machine.
Every individual calculation is understood, and every step of training is understood, but the exact nature of those weights that divide the responsibility of responding to subtle changes of input in intelligent ways is beyond me.
No worries, no one does. Exactly like no one knows how the brain reasons either.
It's really good at pattern recognition.
So I'm not sure how it knows to be 'surprised' that alone is pretty fascinating.
It is odd (or maybe not) that they decided to publish a marketing whitepaper rather than a more traditional journal submission + preprint. The work does appear to be sufficient for a publication, though there's a good chance a reviewer will rip into them for some of the assertions they make, but given the topic I'm sure the paper will be accepted regardless.
The market for entry-level programmers has already declined, but at least they were somewhat in demand and made reasonable salaries. Now what happens to post-docs who already make almost nothing and often get treated like crap?
Did anyone read the blogpost? They did publish a pre-print:
https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/22573675ada52a8ca8a97a1a4b4326...I just looked at it. I really hope they're not thinking of sending that to an actual bioinformatics, computational biology or molecular biology journal! So embarrassing...
(I love how Anthropic boast about building a lab, but don't seem to realise that you have to test your hypothesis in the lab! Right now, all their "spectacular" assertions are untested and unproven.)
I realise that this will only improve from here, but gods Anthropic has no idea about the biological sciences right now.
I don't recall that being there when I first read their post a few hours ago... No way to confirm, sadly, as they've posted it to their own domain
Earliest snapshot is from 3 hours ago, more or less, it already shows the pre-print: https://web.archive.org/web/20260923180804/https://www.anthr...
archive.is has a snapshot from 18:47, showing the link was indeed there a few hours ago. https://archive.is/XM0Nw
What's with all this pre-print business. It became very prevalent during covid, where it felt like every week some new pre-print was published that discusses some new aspect of the virus. These papers would then be used in arguments and put forward as proof of whatever claim the arguer was making.
Every man and his dog can publish a pre-print and in my opinion it's academically worthless.
Preprints are just a way to sacrifice rigor for accessibility and velocity. You can throw out "here, this is what I'm working on, here are the quick and dirty findings" really fast and with little friction.
This does skip the academic "checks and balances" like journal selection and peer review - but it can also help anyone else who's working on the adjacent topics.
If a field is moving fast, and you think there can be some value in your work for others in the near term? Preprint. If your work is too incomplete or too minor to warrant trying to polish and publish it, but you don't want to table it? Preprint. Too deep in corporate structures to care about academic "street cred", and want your work to be accessible? Preprint. Have an exciting early finding that you want to push out there, and are willing to take the rep risks of being wrong about it? Preprint.
There's a reason why preprints came to be the lifeblood of ML.
Academia isn't my thing but I also wonder if there isn't an aspect of putting a stake in the ground? So that if someone beats you to publishing you at least have some record of being on that track.
I have a similar to pagerank method I use to evaluate such papers. I look for the references to see how many authors are using their own references (past work), the idea being that people do not jump too far, they make incremental progress.
For the pre-print I could only find only one author who has a single referenced article.
The review time on top journals is multiple years now (your paper will go through many review loops each of which takes months). It's just totally unworkable for active research, whether you're a student or a corporation.
Journal articles are usually behind a paywall. Preprints are a fully open workaround allowed by most journals.
> Every man and his dog can publish a pre-print and in my opinion it's academically worthless.
Sure but if you look at the authors names and see they have 50 other published papers, you can get a rough idea that it's probably equivalently good to their other work.
Until you've done it yourself, it's hard to grok just how bad the peer review process is. It's like...5% better than nothing.
Honestly you could argue peer review is worse than nothing, as it also filters out actually quality work that violates some dogma of the field.
Just going to post this. And I think it's safe to say that no, they didn't read it.
Medical advances are more important than post docs
Absolutely. But without post docs, it won't be long before we are unable to understand what the LLMs are suggesting.
many drugs were discovered, evaluated and approved without understanding at all how they worked.
iirc back in the day chemists synthesized a whole bunch of random compounds, observed their effects (in mice etc., or even the chemists tasting them!) then did clinical trials to measure safety and efficacy.
high-throughput screening of chemical libraries on in vitro assays is the modern version of this. "rational" drug design, which uses understanding of mechanisms to design chemical structures for a specific purpose, largely failed back in the '80s.
I can't understand what the post-docs are suggesting.
True, but it's also not your job to understand what post-docs are suggesting (hopefully), unlike post-docs who kind of need to understand what LLMs are suggesting.
Not to get back into the AI safety debate from last week, but I really, really want a team of human experts to understand what the AI is suggesting before we administer new medical treatments or synthesize new lifeforms in the lab.
At this point it should be clear that Anthropic are determined to create the doomsday scenario as the most idiotic "I told you so" gotcha in history.
If you can't, then you aren't in the field, and it doesn't matter if you could or not.
There will always be a %age of humans who will be curious how the universe works including LLMs. Delusional to think those humans are only incentivized by degrees, or money.
Humans were curious and started the intelligence / learning explosion much much before money and degrees were invented.
For most of history we died of easily preventable diseases because we lacked the scientific institutions to learn how to prevent them. The fact that a percentage of the population wanted to know more is why we live so well today, but it didn’t stop many of those people from dying awfully. It wouldn’t take a lot to go back there, or at least to a civilization that would go back there the second the AIs have a major outage.
Sure. But unless they are born into a very wealthy family, or decide to pass up on having a family and other hobbies, they won't be able to satisfy that curiosity beyond a very basic level.
once everyone lives to 200 yo there will be no need for post-docs - afterward we can just upload PI's brain to some AI.
I wonder who's going to pay for that extra 120 years of living we're gonna be doing?
I have no idea what prompts questions like these.
We got to 80 without inventing money. Living that long back then was hard work every day.
Then the industrial revolution happened, and we got state pensions at one end of life and extended childhood a few years past adolescence on the other. We currently pay for this… by taxes funding both education and a pension.
Absent the radical transformations of an AI driven economy, we live 200 years in exactly the same way.
With those transformations, all bets are off unless they violate the laws of physics.
Musk said we will all be rich so we will?
This is a bit like saying that shoes are more important than shoe factories. Yes, sure, I can't wear a shoe factory, but we'll all run out of shoes if all the factories are gone.
cobblers used to make and mend shoes before shoe factories existed..
Perhaps if you assume we will continually be offered highly valuable medical advances into the future without humans who understand it.
That's a big assumption to make, so I hope you at least have some proof to back it up.
Post docs is the base that AI was born from...
We still need post docs. What will change is their specializations.
That's why nobody writes their paper on gravity or polio in 2026.
Then we end up like that anti-aging guy and end up older and giving ourselves untreatable diseases
But do we get any without them?
> The market for entry-level programmers has already declined, but at least they were somewhat in demand and made reasonable salaries. Now what happens to post-docs who already make almost nothing and often get treated like crap?
Waiting for frontier labs to get into Political Science to show that SOTA models can be vastly better politicians...
It's not odd, it's a for profit company that's using it for marketing.
No, it's not odd; IMO. It's by design.
I see all of this leading to a setup for: We did cure Cancer, everyone else (Healthcare, Gov., Rx) etc... has just not caught up or even worse; "you just don't have access top that model/version".
I have seen several times on HN recently how people don't see the impact of AI/more code etc... and I believe this is because its following the K-shape of the current economy.
At the top where most of us aren't but CAN see via stock market news etc...; they are making more money by adding efficiencies etc...
At the bottom; efficiencies are being applied at a scale that they could not before such that social and Gov. programs are more manageable and optimized at scale.
Novel discoveries are now marketing ads.
If individuals had power to allocate funding or not to public research projects rather than get a blanket tax, there would be a lot more conventional marketing in the public sector as well.
> Now what happens to post-docs who already make almost nothing and often get treated like crap?
This sort of discoveries are what gets postdocs funded lmao.
Every new idea like this creates several years worth of highly specialized work to test out derivative ideas, productizing it, and connecting dots to existing work.
> Now what happens to post-docs who already make almost nothing and often get treated like crap?
At least in the US, that particular brain drain has already been happening due to Trump's administration. The best of the best are exiting to other countries that will gladly have them, and then there will be far fewer people getting into the field. Science in general has taken a massive hit under the current administration and it going to take decades to fix if it's even possible.
Why decades?
Need risk aversion to reset after risk was raised temporarily. Humans are cautious creatures
I’m curious, what differentiates this from a preprint given the assumption it’s sufficient for publication? It didn’t read like marketing, they don’t seem to sell anything, and there's a link to a not-anthropic.com hosted paper.
> they don’t seem to sell anything
i'll give you a hint: they're selling something
Let's say "anything talking about your product is selling something instead of doing science"
Then we're faced with "why would a (insert whatever makes this a preprint) mean they're not selling something"? (well, at least OP is faced with that, FWIW I think there's ~infinite snarky replies available, but they're sort of uninteresting, no? :)
Well because it is not talking about your product that is what would've created the publication. But what is argued is the research should just be properly published. That publication would have been some advancement in enzyme research and not "Hey we pretend our fancy model created new research and we forget to mention that it was queried for weeks by experts in the field constantly correcting the model whenever it did something wrong until it resulted in something that the researchers could also have created on their own"
Tbh I might be misrepresenting the original post, because in this case I did not read it, but for your point I feel like I also don't have to
"Look at what our product achieved" isn't selling anything? Do you want to take at this bridge I'm selling?
Sure! (presuming it's "take a look at" :)
After I entertain you by doing that, is there a steelman version of my reply you're interested in entertaining me with, by replying? Or, just the strawman?
It's not odd at all. Every single "AI did this cool thing" type post is an Ad. Remember AI outputs slop and never produced anything valuable that wasn't heavily assisted by humans or is a lie.
This shows why biology is so much harder a problem area for LLMs than math, finding RTs is tedious but pretty doable today, they had to scope the problem down a lot from something that would be the equivalent of Navier Stokes in biology. Glad they’re doing it though, even if it’s just marketing.
This shit can get highly dangerous, much more so than some datacenter hacking.
Every day now I expect that they or somebody alike will discover in our genes that we (ie life) are lambda terms, combinators or something similar to Universally Programmable Intelligent Matter https://web.eecs.utk.edu/~bmaclenn/UPIM/UPIM3.pdf or chemSKI https://imar.ro/~mbuliga/talks/chemski-with-tokens.html
All it takes is to identify the syntax, so to say.
This is something I like joking around about, with regard to how LLMs are 'decent' [debatable but taken as a premise] software engineers. For a long time people have said DNA/RNA/etc is the programming of life.
If it is indeed HIGHLY analogous to programming, we would then expect LLMs/future systems to be HIGHLY proficient at accurate ex-vivo gene [or enzyme/protein] modification/construction
We are Cellular Automata
It's really a matter of iterating on the problem and validation right?
Models make progress on coding and math because they can write tests and proofs to an extent. Many industries that are more 'physical' and require performing experiments lack that instant feedback loop. Find a way to close that loop and AI begins to look useful.
But try and convince companies to invest on closing that loop just to see if the current models work well on their problems or not? Tough sell. So Anthropic just shows them, hey look, this is possible and if you don't do it I will.. so they fold.
I’m confused why AI companies are using agents in-house for this type of research instead of partnering externally.
I guess the improvement loop is tighter and they have more control over how discoveries can be used for marketing?
But, in my mind, it begins to feel like they are setting themselves up to be “everything” companies instead of focusing on their core product…
Because their core product is not a long-term sustainable business strategy. Local hardware and models will continue to improve to the point of not needing the hosted solutions. And if you do need a hosted solution, remember that the big cloud providers already offer these solutions, so signing up for OpenAI/Anthropic _and_ AWS/GCP/Azure is not a sound business decision compared to just signing up with 1 of them that offers your cloud infra + GenAI infra. (Which is why the long-term benefits for cloud companies will probably be for the likes of AWS and not the likes of OpenAI).
They'll continue to burn money for marginal model improvements in the next few years all the while having no moat _and_ having Open-Weight / Local models eat their lunch.
The only way for them to stay relevant as a company is to expand beyond simply providing the models.
I'm old enough to remember the arrival of RDBMS, once IBM primed the space with DB2.
There was a pitched battle over features like row-level locking as competitors like Sybase, Ingress and Oracle scrapped it out. New features arrived on a monthly cadence, with immense engineering effort behind them. The winners (Oracle mostly) won a great moat which led to them to where they are today.
The fact that so many AI companies can produce amazing coding tools so quickly shows there is no moat, supporting your theory.
The AI companies moat, if any, is hoarding all the hardware so local solutions are no longer cost-effective.
That is impossible to fund. At some point someone will decide to stop throwing money on the firepit that's the current business model and then hardware prices crash back to earth as 60-70% of the global demand disappears overnight.
This is not really sustainable when there is a constant supply of increasingly powerful and efficient hardware.
Right: Capital markets know how to efficiently turn dollars into tokens, even if it means tens of billions invested in new DRAM fabs.
It is more of a regulatory capture byproduct to prop up an artificial token driven Ponzi scheme.
There is a serious alternative to NVIDIA "AI" hardware dropping out of China in February 2027. There is no moat, but a whole lot of unpaid debts in the near future.
Popcorn ready =3
Which Chinese alternative is that?
Huawei is upgrading its Ascend 950PR (2.8 times an Nvidia H20 performance.)
https://apnews.com/article/huawei-ai-chips-nvidia-superpod-t...
Take it lightly until the benchmarks drop. ymmv =3
I honestly have no expert knowledge about this stuff. What I say is based only on intuition.
Reminiscent of tank warfare in WW2. The soviet T-34 was not remarkable in any particular way, but the sheer volumes it was produced in made it a very serious enemy to German tanks. As Stalin said "quantity has a quality all of its own".
I would phrase it slightly differently.
The companies who control the compute resources will ~always control the greatest "amount" of intelligence. They can lease that intelligence out, or they can use it themselves. Currently the "total amount of intelligence" or perhaps "total amount of ability-to-do-stuff" is split between humans and machines at a ratio that means it still makes sense to lease the machine intelligence to the human intelligence - plus there are things that humans are still better at. In maybe 2 more years that will stop being true, due to the availability of more physical compute resources, and far greater model intelligence per unit compute. At that point, the point at which the substantial majority of ability-to-do-stuff is controlled by machine intelligence, then the entities who control all the compute will control all the ability-to-do-stuff, i.e. "the economy."
So I agree that the core product is not long-term sustainable as a product but this is because the whole world will look so different in the near future that the framing of intelligence as a "product" breaks down.
Open-Weight models, of course, are fine and useful, but if you have one million times less compute than your competitor (the lab), then you're not really playing the same game. You can only tackle the problems that they have decided they're not interested in.
Their moat is the tens of GW of power and associated compute.
A chatbot for cancer researchers to talk to is worth single-digit billions at most. Anthropic is already valued at over a trillion dollars, on the premise that they can replace the majority of jobs in most knowledge industries. All the announcements about hacking / math problems / biological science are meant to create the impression that that strategy works and is repeatable across industries.
Cancer research is a lot harder for LLMs than math millennium problems though, because there is no fast feedback loop to iterate on. Even if you have a really good idea based on a solid theoretical insight, doing the experiments using in-vitro/mice/monkeys/humans can take years or even decades. I have no doubt that AI will help find new avenues that boost certain parts of research in these fields, but I don't see a potential for a drastic change until we at the very least give LLMs a direct way to interact with lab equipment and train them using RL on it.
Yes, but initial discovery of molecules and novel mechanisms is massive. That was the last generational change in modern drug research was the movement to high throughput screening, going from the ability to screen 10's of molecules to hundreds of thousands to find 'hits'. Better and more focused models, especially ones trained internally at big pharma companies will accelerate that portion of the pipeline, or increase the hit rate of successful compounds. Several companies are already taking this approach like Novo has been. There are other more early stage companies like Recursion and others that are doing the same thing. They are more tech companies than traditional wet lab companies.
Sorry, yes I agree 100%. I don't agree with their narrative, I was just explaining it. I think it's fraudulent and based on science fiction and will lead to a significant economic crisis.
RL robotics is increasingly something that cannot be avoided, I think.
> ... until we at the very least give LLMs a direct way to interact with lab equipment and train them using RL on it.
Which is exactly what is being done.
https://www.reuters.com/world/anthropic-quietly-sets-up-biol...
Not according to Anthropic:
Automated labs are far more challenging to build and run than most people appreciate. If I wanted to make progress quickly in discovery science, I would find good lab techs before building automated labs.
>A chatbot for cancer researchers to talk to is worth single-digit billions at most
I am disappointed by your lack of Capitalism buff. What you say is true, but what is the untapped fetish market for such a thing?
I'm confused of why this is a question. First of all everyone is doing something because it benefits them. You and I included. Second of all as long as it's a real discovery, it will be beneficial to us all eventually (after benefiting Anthropic for sure).
Perhaps you're not on HN long enough, but there have been many posts where someone bemoaned the lack of basic science research by corporations, that IBM and Microsoft were the only a few remaining companies with any science research. Guess what? they do it for their own benefits as well.
They do partner externally. This work is fundamental discovery science, rather than industrial research.
the folks who run anthropic grew up reading scifi with crazy awesome biotech. However, when they look at biotech today, it's just depressing. It's incredibly slow, it takes decadfes to prove out new technologies, and they figure with this new tool, they can just point it at problems and have it emit discoveries. If they show a few high-impact discoveries, that makes a case for them to move biotech forward much faster than its current progress.
Also, anthropic has so much capitalization right now that it's simply easiest to invest it in a wide portfolio that includes both internal and external research.
Because the goal is marketing and maxxing the IPO, not real-world results.
Better than doing this, just in case you hadn’t heard: https://www.businessinsider.com/inside-open-ai-influencer-ma...
Yeah I don't think OpenAI are the first company to discover marketing
...which Anthropic is always doing:
(from the third link)https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/06/google-microsoft-pay-creator...
https://www.reddit.com/r/NYCinfluencersnark/comments/1sn3t9k...
https://aftermath.site/ai-influencer-creator-deals-sponsorsh...
That isn’t actually the point, the point is that the AI companies should be made to see that doing things for society is the only way they get any kudos.
If they want to compete to be seen as the good guy, by all means let them. But it means actually having to be the good guy, in at least some respects.
Indeed, intelligent life on earth confirmed =3
I was actually thinking the other day that it makes perfect sense for AI companies to develop a professional services oriented software development arm. Imagine that you want to develop a training pipeline for "tasteful" programming: you might make a reward metric for that does some obvious stuff (nothing that anyone could easily agree is a bug like a crash, good performance, perhaps minimize LoC), but you really want to also want to also track "bugs" where the feature was discovered to be missing some unspecified nuance that was only discovered through product use, or train on ability to keep a small codebase while also keeping diffs small (essentially, "maintainability") as real new requirements come in.
So then you want a training set full of real product requirements and product evolution, which is something you could get if you offered custom software development, with a lot more control than you'd get trying to do the same by scraping random FOSS projects on github.
Other industries are perhaps similar. If you offer a service directly, you have much more ability to build collection of training data into the process. Want to make the best law bot? Buy a law firm, offer legal services, and integrate extremely deeply into their workflows. If their models turn out to be as good as they hype up, they should be able to scale to be a major player in any endeavor they move into with a relatively small number of staff and develop a strong feedback loop (not that that would be good for the rest of us).
If your core service is getting more expensive to provide and competitors are busy eating your margins, why let someone else taste your secret sauce and only get paid for the tokens, when you can keep the good stuff (bio capability) for yourself, and net both the profit and the fame?
> I’m confused why AI companies are using agents in-house for this type of research instead of partnering externally.
As an outsider, here is how I explain that behavior:
1. Truly risky models are very useful.
2. Truly risky models should not be released, according to AI safety standards. I think Antrhopic genuinely believes in AI safety. (see: standing up against automated kill chains, no matter the impacts to the company)
3. Truly risky models face regulatory pressures, if released to the public.
This all leads to "let's just do this in-house." I believe that might end up being the answer to every application of AI eventually. It seems unavoidable, and very depressing.
External partners don't trust the AI companies I think to not steal their work and the partner's moat
Lands as an active threat. Maybe they're serious about this research or not, but for sure medical companies doing this sort of research will consider upping their AI budget and connecting their labs, etc. to avoid "falling behind".
So, the AI labs benefit either from achieving something they could market or from the peer-pressure imposed to companies in the sectors they get their nose in.
> “everything” companies instead of focusing on their core product
Aren't all large companies like that? Apple makes hardware, software, platforms, ...
If an amazing drug or other therapeutic falls out of this I bet they would be happy to own it outright.
I wonder what the AI version of Albert Hofman will come up with.
I think the "everything company" vision has become apparent for a while now. Doesn't even have to be sinister - I think Anthropic simply believes on one else can be trusted with this power. Another point of leverage they have is that they can keep their internal models for themselves.
They’re trying to pivot into verticals because being a "dumb model provider" has no real moat any longer.
"Everything" is the core product if you are developing AGI
the core product has no moat and they're racing to find the actual product
Relevant: "Anthropic quietly sets up biology lab as it ramps AI drug program"
https://www.reuters.com/world/anthropic-quietly-sets-up-biol...
Because clients don’t know how to use the tools.
I run into this all the time - we have such powerful functionality available to our users, and further we provide the elements that undergird all of it, so it’s totally possible for clients to take the services they buy from us and reconfigure them to make their own tools, better even than the ones we have built, purpose-built for their workflows…
And 9/10 clients will just click on the one thing they know and recognize and are familiar with and comfortable with… and then stop thinking about it.
It’s crazy how much of our job is not only building our product, but interrogating our clients over what they need, so we can demonstrate how our tools solve their problem. The users simply are not interested in figuring it out for themselves.
This is my speculation as well. For the time being, knowing how to use Claude extremely effectively probably beats out industry insider status. And Anthropic can attract whatever expertise it needs to build scrappy research teams in house. I'm guessing this kind of work doesn't need 100+ people, maybe just a dozen highly specialized people.
Given the prestige of the AI labs, the recent explosion of math proofs, the literal millions they can throw around, it seems very likely they can attract then fund small research projects across a broad range of science. And like startup math, it only takes one or two ground breaking results from a hundred attempts to pay back in the PR/hype.
Did Claude find this on it's own, or did somebody using Claude find it?
"We gave Claude a prompt to search through a massive database of DNA sequences for interesting new examples of RTs. Our involvement was limited to the initial prompt and the lab work, while Claude agents combed through the database, investigated the distinct RT families, and used their own judgement to identify interesting candidates. After 21 hours spent searching this data by roughly 950 agents using 210 million tokens, one of the agents spotted something remarkable: a repeating pattern of DNA sequences that occurs next to the gene for an odd-looking RT. After further analysis and testing in our lab, we recognized that this pattern marked a previously uncharacterized enzyme system found in bacteriophages (the viruses that infect bacteria) that we call array-associated reverse transcriptases (ART)."
We've all used LLMs. It was certainly somebody using Claude.
I recently heard Anthropic quietly setup its own bio lab.
That it’s plausible that they’ll move from selling tokens as their primary source of revenue to building frontier models to do cutting edge research, and using the research as their primary source of revenue rather than release the models. Because it’ll be far less of a race to the bottom than commodified tokens used by the general public.
Will be interesting to see how this all unfolds. (No pun intended, but there is a funny one there…)
Yea, I think that there's pretty much a ceiling with day-to-day models that have already been hit months ago. Maybe you need SOTA for reviews, high-level planning, or research, but long running tasks like writing out a feature, testing, getting feedback and making refactors can be done for low-end models (like luna). And the margins on those models are basically evaporating.
The article talks about the lab, so it's not quiet at all.
apparently big labs are also pitching profit sharing arrangements to biopharma companies in exchange for privileged access to the top internal above-the-api capability models .... repeat this in every industrial vertical and it could turn out that much denied Dario claim may as well have been true for all intents and purposes
I mean its what universities have done for years haven't they?
Never really wondered what financial relationship between research hospitals that participate in drug trials and pharma companies is, but now I'm wondering...
Which claim?
Yeah, I hope so as well. I want to see this tech being used for good stuff and not just spam and inducing fear ...
So they're already threatening their customers Amazon-style?
Excellent. Now every pharma company, plus any kind of company that wants to own a market through innovation, will need a "world-class" AI research team that actually has spectacular AI budgets.
Pacing that frontier with some bioengineering gain of function
It's clear Dario believes that the solution to AI's PR problem is to cure cancer. Or invent other revolutionary medical treatments. They're going to heavily promote every step along the way no matter how small or far away from commercialization they are, like this one.
No doubt that curing cancer would help, but I think the timeline might be a little too long. Even RSI AGI will not be able to get new medical treatments to market instantly. Real world testing takes a long time and is an unavoidable part of the process.
Really now, everything is bad? Trying to cure diseases? Talking about it? That’s bad somehow! Let me sit here on my ass and do nothing instead.
Who are you referring to? This reads like projection.
Read the comment. This is cynical and bad because they’re going to advertise that they’re trying to do something socially beneficial.
It’s the top rated comment in the thread. Somebody tried to do something good, this is the response.
This pisses me off severely.
You're only seeing part of the picture and you're pissed off about how people dislike the whole other part of the picture you're disregarding.
No wonder it feels confusing.
Your comment is vacuous. There isn’t any other part of the picture. Trying to advance medicine is inherently good. It doesn’t matter how much you use it for marketing. None of what they have done is fake or useless, it is at worst early.
It’s because these people do not believe they are trying to do something good, but instead run a cynical plot to get more powerful under the guise
In fact, I think it's great and I'm rooting for them. I just don't think it's likely to improve AI's public image anytime soon.
Glad to hear how you feel about it. However, and this applies more generally than your comment above, what people online often forget is that there is such a thing as both positive and negative reinforcement. If you don’t reinforce good behaviours as well as denouncing bad ones, then you don’t get good outcomes.
Dario would like to ‘cure’ aging. He’s got some personal experience with bad illnesses, but aging isn’t that. I also have reduced trust for people who want to live forever and don’t have kids.
> I also have reduced trust for people who want to live forever and don’t have kids.
I want to live forever (or until I'm bored of it) and I don't have kids. I'm not sure what that has to do with trustworthiness.
Edit: And, you're saying you want to die. Is that more trustworthy than not wanting to die? I suppose if you are religious, you might believe you're going somewhere good when you die, in which case, you don't actually believe death exists, so we're having different conversations. I believe death exists and is permanent, and I'd like to not do that.
Not Op but there’s a inch of people asking why, and I have a similar feeling to op so here’s my post hoc justification for a weakly held and poorly supported prejudice:
It’s really because statistically, in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without. This is more in description than judgement, but it’s true in my experience. We can speculate as to reasons, but looking after kids does train a certain kind of selflessness. Agreed we might be doing it for ultimately selfish reasons (self presentational or for care in old age or whatever). But for a good chunk of the time, caring for kids seems to require the fairly consistent subjugation of personal preferences, and a degeee of perspective taking, that I just think people without kids don’t have. And that often shows in their interactions at work and in daily life. Obviously there are myriad exceptions. But it’s true enough in my experience.
The wanting to live forever part also seems weird to me, and correlated with a certain sort of self regarding perspective. It seems obvious to me that I (or my generations) need to die for my children and grandchildren to have a good life. To try and subvert that also seems selfish or self important somehow.
I’m not really arguing this is a correct or good or just position. It might be terrible! But it did resonate..
> It’s really because statistically, in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without.
I've witnessed the opposite: Having kids made people much more selfish. Resources were plenty before they had kids, so they would spend a lot (time and money) on others - be it friends or the general public.
When kids come along, two things happen:
1. Resources are limited, so a lot less goes outside the family.
2. At least one parent will put the foot down when being generous to people outside the family - even if the wealth/income supports being able to do so. Tribalism sets in.
Paying full taxes to support a society where people with kids pay less taxes and receive more benefits from the State is certainly not selfish. That's the case in my country, at least.
Money is not the only way one can contribute to one's society. Doubling the amount of productive people to society is also a big contribution.
Even from a purely financial perspective you need to count all of the future taxes that will be collected from the family lineage instead of just from the one person who ended his lineage.
> It’s really because statistically, in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without.
That would certainly be your opinion. I think the ultimate selflessness in a world being more and more damaged by humans would to elect not to perpetuate the species, and help try to leave the world a better place for those who do choose to have kids.
very very bizarre ideology. Glad you arent having kids. thank you for your service.
That's an absurdly selfish position. You're taking a stance that not existing is superior to living in the future, all the while living in the world yourself. Might as well advocate for nuclear genocide.
Why selfish? They said that they want to leave the world a better place for other people children. Is there something that I didn't get as an ESL?
The flaw in that ideology is that everyone relies on the next generation for care in their old age. Taking advantage of the future generation without contributing to raising it isn't selfless in the slightest.
If you live in a developed country you probably already have a demographic crisis. Not having kids is hurting the next generation, not helping.
It still baffles me that some have children to have someone around them when they're old
>in my experience people without kids are more selfish than those without
This goes so far against my own (equally anecdotal) experience that one of us must be living in a bubble
This aligns with my own experience to a T.
>It’s really because statistically, in my experience
Uhh, no. Your experience is not data.
Yeah we gotta put me on that list too. This is a weirdly specific prejudice.
> I want to live forever (or until I'm bored of it) and I don't have kids. I'm not sure what that has to do with trustworthiness.
When I hear people say stuff like this, I hear that they want to remove the single most universal chesterton's fence in all of living systems. I hear them take pride in their/our hubris, and demonstrate willingness to put the whole multiplex ecology of life at risk because they believe themselves/us to be more clever than thermodynamic evolution.
Biological singletons (outside very specific niche situations) are not meant to persist, and most anything that has tried, it has simply been selected out of the lineage. This constraint (which we don't understand yet) is presumably the whole reason why biology discovered and moved into the more ephemeral higher-order substrate of thought and culture.
Just my feelings though. Feel free to disagree.
Chesterton's fence implies intention, a will, a decision to stand up the fence. I don't believe in gods, so my existence and its length were determined by a series of accidents. It isn't right or wrong or even optimal, it's just the traits that survived thus far.
It isn't even a rule of biology. There are living things with much longer lifespans than humans, some even effectively immortal (absent predation or accident or climate change).
Your language implies you believe in a creator of some sort, something making decisions about how things should be. You've called it "biology", but "biology" doesn't "discover" or have a "reason" for doing things.
> I hear them take pride in their/our hubris, and demonstrate willingness to put the whole multiplex ecology of life at risk because they believe themselves/us to be more clever than thermodynamic evolution.
I hear you taking pride in accepting death on a quite short timespan as a necessity, and hubris that one individual living longer puts "the whole multiplex ecology of life at risk".
We have already disconnected from evolution, to a large degree. Many people who would have died in childhood a couple hundred years ago now survive to adulthood and procreation.
Should we stop vaccinating children because they were supposed to die to protect the delicate balance? Surely it is hubris to prevent their deaths when evolution and biology discovered polio and smallpox to kill and maim them? If there is a biological Chesterton's fence it is probably sitting somewhere around five years old and half of people wouldn't make it past it.
> Chesterton's fence implies intention, a will, a decision to stand up the fence
It most certainly does not.
How could it not? Chesterton's fence asks the question, "Why was it put there?" Without a will you can only answer "how was it put there" and not "why".
There is an assumption of correctness in the argument that "we must die because we do die". It's tautology. That doesn't comport with my understanding of how we got here, and I don't believe there is an answer to "why" we are here, beyond the meaning we make of our own lives. If our 70-90 year lifespan (if we're lucky and aren't struck down younger) is an evolutionary accident, and I believe it is, then extending that lifespan is Good, Actually.
As one obvious example, evolution is not agentic but still answers "why" questions.
"Why do we have a heart" "Why do we sweat", etc.
But Chesterton's fence is often used in an even MORE generalized way than just that, not "why is it there" but "what are we not seeing about how this connects to everything else"
As an example, eradicating mosquitos. We see many obvious reasons why it might be good, we can even see that they don't seem that important in the food chain, but it would be hubris to assume we understand every potential connection they have to world ecology.
> are not meant to
Because it hasn't happened?
Do you not want other people to die and be replaced?
I don't have kids. I have not caused a need for me to die to make room or to be "replaced" (though "overpopulation" arguments are often eugenicist and/or racist propaganda, and don't engage with actual density/agricultural limits, so I'm hesitant to make any arguments based on whether there is room for people to not die).
Obviously not? What an insane question
How can you want for other people what you don't want for yourself? Why should other people die, for example of cancer, when having the chance I'll opt for the cure?
do these other people have a fertility rate of at least 2.1?
I think there's a nuance gap here. Many of us, if offered, would be happy to live for a a millennium or two if we'd stay at worst middle-aged. But there's a giant gap between being willing to take that offer if given, and a desire for it being a big personal motivating factor.
Don't worry, all these people moralising on the importance of aging and dying will do their utmost to live longer and in better health whenever the time of the choice comes. No one will say "oh well I guess I'll just keep this illness because that's the natural course of things"- they will get the medicines and the surgery, the creams and the lotions, they'll jog and limit exposure to the sun and avoid smoking and drinking. Given the choice, unless incurably ill or in the depth of despair, they'll always choose life. At least for themselves.
+1
what a weird bias
The prejudice is based on billionaires being the first to get access to the cure for aging in these hypothetical scenarios.
While everyone else can't afford it. Hard to think of a more demoralizing "off with their heads" dystopian scenario.
Think of rich people as beta testers.
On a personal level it would be demoralizing to see some billionaires live multiple lifetimes, but only a tad more demoralizing than seeing the wealth disparity we already have and the changing line of idiot faces at the top.
Well, sure, but there are solutions to those particular billionaires. We don't have any politicians I'm aware of that are willing to consider those solutions, but they exist. Societies, including the US (to some degree), have solved the problem of oligarchs in the past through various means. We can do it again, and should consider all the options.
especially given how they fund their billions from 401k through rapid inclusion into indexes, building DCs near residential areas, stealing IP, regulatory capture and hype driving manipulations.
I would like him to cure aging too! I have kids, am I allowed to want to live indefinitely?
> I also have reduced trust for people who want to live forever and don’t have kids.
I have reduced trust in people who make judgements about the value systems of others based on fairly meaningless characteristics.
Aging is one of the only real equalisers. Maybe the greatest equaliser. Though those that have become old seemed to have become more stubborn in holding on to power but even that will pass.
> I also have reduced trust for people who want to live forever and don’t have kids.
Why are you only allowed to live forever if you have kids?
Seems like someone seeking immortality should be willing to do for the elixir if they want it even a little bit...
> I also have reduced trust for people who want to live forever and don’t have kids.
How so?
Not OP, but wanting eternal life without leaving a legacy just sounds like someone trying to be a god and is very narcissistic behavior
Or they just enjoy life and want to keep living? What about it is 'trying to be a god'?
The never dying part...
"Gods are immortal" does not imply "immortals are god" though. Like the movies showed us, you could always just cut off their heads. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
Gods famously don't have legacies
A lot of parents are literally trying to live forever in some way by leaving a legacy.
Isn't wanting billions of other people to die infinitely more narcissistic than not wanting to die yourself?
tbh we are trying to treat aging as a chronic illness and we probably will
I mean, if people start living forever, they better stop having kids... at least until we colonize other planets.
Probably should have left off the kids, but lets start with just distrusting anybody who wants to live forever. At the level of influence billionaires have, it is downright dangerous.
For everyone else confused: Think of all the people throughout history we would prefer would not have lived forever. Then multiple that by A LOT. Then consider how greedy and sociopathic most of the billionaire class is already.
Now, we could spend time getting distracted by childless. I don't think it matters.
I mean, wanting billionaires to not live forever (read: wanting power structures to not become excessively entrenched) is a pretty different thing.
I'd even be fine with people who are billionaires living forever, so long as they don't remain billionaires / don't fuck with politics / etc.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Fundamentally the problem with living forever goes beyond billionaires. People get stuck in their ways of thinking, the mindset of living forever is completely different. Why should I even listen to someone who only lives a mere 40 years? What is a suitable punishment for someone that lives forever? How does it change murder?
Philosophically, living forever may be corrupt by nature.
The only way to tear down tiers of society is for some of those tiers to literally die off.
Why? Who in their right mind would have children in 2026? Everything is burning, gone to shit, and projected to get worse. Having children is insanely irresponsible.
HackerNews' neuroticism is unmatched
Your dramatization of society's ills are not tethered to reality
It's not? Have your seen climate change forecast? Have you seen the cost of diesel? Eeosion of democracy in the US?
Please. Every single age of humanity, there have been hardships. It was actually much worse before: Diseases galore, famine, pests, wars. You're severely negatively biased as is a lot of other people I've seen.
Have you lived long enough to see it go up and down?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature
You can see this is not a cyclic issue.
Or atleast not a cycle shorter than couple thousand years.
What's funny about this attitude is that people were having a lot of children when half of them died in their childhood and for those left there were famines, pestilences, wars, no painkillers or anesthesia and no medicines for anything.
The reality is that we don't make many children because our life is way too comfortable for that.
Spoken like someone terminally online & without children. If this is your view of reality (I believe it is an utter fiction but nonetheless), then I don't know how you propose things to be improved without smart people procreating.
Cancer can be cured in a lot of cases, its just so damn expensive and the treatment is beyond torturous that some patients cannot handle it. Stem cells are amazing. But we need cheaper technology to replicate them into the cancer destroyers they need to be, as well as find ways to ease the pain of that internal battle.
Please tell me more about these “cures” you speak of. Because to my knowledge, yes we are good at getting patients into remission, we do not have “cures” Coupled with the fact that treatment is often life altering in and of itself
In addition to the other comment mentioning CAR-T therapies, we also have therapies based on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs)
https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2024...
https://jitc.bmj.com/content/8/2/e000848 (careful: Figure 1 can be very graphical, but it shows the huge positive impact of this therapy)
We also have therapies based on monoclonal recombinant antibodies conjugated with chemotherapeutics. Simply put, we can produce antibodies that are specific for markers present in the surface of cancer cells, and we can attach drugs that can kill those cells. The antibody part is what makes this type of therapy very effective (you target only cancer cells, and not healthy cells) and also very expensive.
Semantics. Cancer is uncontrolled growth of cells. Treating it is killing/removing the cancer cells. Problem of course is you are never sure if you got all of them. If you got all of them you are “cured”. If you didn’t you are not cured in case the remaining cells manage to grow and spread again. We don’t talk about “cure” because of course it is impossible to verify if 100% is gone or not.
Why is it 'of course impossible'? Couldn't we someday have nanobots or other tech that could screen all your cells and be able to indicate whether any cancerous cells remain?
If we were able to find cancer cells with a precision down to 1 cell, killing them would be trivial. There are lots of cells in a person. It's possible we will get there someday. I think bioengineering is the most likely route. I.e., design a virus to specifically target the type of cancer cell you mean to eradicate.
Strictly speaking, no impossible from our understanding of physics, but also an enormous scientific and engineering problem. research into that would take away from people working on more reasonable approaches today.
No. It's hard to get even small molecules where we want them in the body, there's no way that the gigantic molecular clusters called "nanobots" could reliably get access to every single cell. (What may be possible is using things like the Moderna cancer vaccine to make your body an inhospitable environment for the growth and multiplication of the cancer cells.)
I don't know about "cured" but I've been cancer free for something like ~27 years. With childhood cancers some of them have very high rates of "cure," but it is true that the impact of the treatments (at that time at least) follows you for life in various ways. The more modern immunotherapies and such seem potentially much better than chemo if they can be turned into successful and consistent approaches.
CAR T-cell therapies (immunotherapy, tldr priming the immune system to respond)
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/research/car-t...
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/types/immunoth...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAR_T_cell
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/may/10/cancer-treat...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Burn (radiation). Cut. Poison (chemo). Your picks for cancer. IMHO Eat less. Remove all sugar and vitamins. Go a week without food. Give your body time to kill the weak cancer cells before they grow exponentially.
Yep, my prediction is that Anthropic is going to use Claude's reputation to "launder" known solutions to aging, cancer, and other things that society hasn't accepted quite yet. But maybe with the right marketing we'll try those things!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49329717
> Dario believes that the solution to AI's PR problem is to cure cancer
He isn’t wrong. But selling potential cures for cancer won’t cut it.
As they should because things like this get people thinking even if it something small. Once you get people thinking about things you tend to get solutions.
Also the general public might find the implications of AGI so distasteful even if everything goes well that we might stall out or get the Butlerian Jihad before we can cure cancer. Artists and Software Engineers, now also Mathematicians, already have existential crises, but the public still thinks AI is fake. I can't imagine the backlash when the realize what's coming even in the good ending.
> Real world testing takes a long time and is an unavoidable part of the process.
Not if it's a virus
Nothing like releasing poorly tested viruses on the public to really earn trust.
Real world approvals for drugs are accelerating through, even with all the steps. Think about it, Moderna went from zero, to approved vaccine in 10 months. While COVID vaccines were the exception, not the rule, there are ways to accelerate the process if there is will and $$$. In the last 20 years, the number of new drug approvals per year in the US has doubled, and the length of time to get approval has been cut in half.
> the length of time to get approval has been cut in half.
Is this true? I haven't heard this before. Cost to get approved is also important, are we making progress there?
No, the parent post was just using a single example that used an expedited method.
Its going to be an uphill battle. Every story about job losses, consequences to the community from building a datacenter (real or perceived), eminent domain case that blows up, plus all the slop on every platform. Not to mention a lot of normies think techbros are obnoxious, and that is who is hyping ai.
They'll need to show their goal is to help humanity and that all the other peoole arent acceptable collateral damage. Since those other people get to vote.
> Even RSI will not be able to get new medical treatments to market instantly. Real world testing takes a long time and is an unavoidable part of the process.
Is it unavoidable, though?
In the way that breathing is unavoidable. Like yeah technically there is a way to avoid doing it, but not a way that you want to seriously consider.
>> the solution to AI's PR problem is to cure cancer
I think its much simpler than that. Anything actually useful for people would be a good solution.
Obviously image gen and code gen is not the case, as though it does increase productivity, it doesn't make anyone's life actually better. If it led to 4 day work week - sure. Otherwise it could easily be net negative.
If something is being used, it's by definition useful, and AI is used a lot.
Like fentanyl, tobacco, heroin, sugar,... All very useful...
please no more doomer talk, can we just be excited that we have ai doing science
I am already having a headache thinking of the whining from the biologist community (if any? I hope their reaction is not as extreme as that of mathematicians).
easily the biggest deal in these fields for a while, and all we get is complaining
Given his background (biophysics PhD, postdoc at Stanford School of Medicine) and that medicine was the core of Machines of Loving Grace back in 2024 it reads less like PR and more like a long-held goal, no? Personally I'm actually surprised it took so long.
Agree trials won't compress much with AI in the near future. But they're starting with basic discovery rather than therapeutics – that part can move fast.
I'd also judge it less by what result is and more by the rate of change – even a year ago ~1k agents running ~1d on single prompt producing wet-lab-verifiable leads wasn't really a thing.
You can't say this. We have no idea. There is nothing about the law of physics that pushes cancer cure a long time away. A lot of people would have told you AI was decades away, yet here we are. We are still on track for possible strong take off.
Now on real world testing, you think the rule applies? I tell you it doesn't. Human life might be precious, but human life in practice is also not precious. We waste so much of it. In some countries regulations will stop/slow it, but there are plenty of places around the world that will turn a blind eye for a fistful of dollars. Countries will go to those locations if it means gaining an edge.
There are many laws of physics that say that cures for cancer- general ones that treat a wide array of cancers and are effectively permanent with no reoccurrence- are a long time away. Cancer is subtle. Cancer is wily. Cancer is tightly integrated with our eukaryotic nature.
AI was decades away, for decades! It took a wide range of conditions to be satisfied before it became clear it was a powerful tool.
Also, medical people rarely use the term "cure cancer", as we have too much experience with recurrence of the "same" cancer (not just in the same location, but a genetic descendent of the original cancer).
There are many things about the laws of physics that push a cancer cure a long time away! Biology is downstream of physics, and the biology of cancer is so vast that the very concept of a "cure for cancer" is almost nonsensical.
Appeals to laws of physics as a "first principles" attempt to explain how thousands of diverse diseases could theoretically be solved overnight by a big computer (while hand waving away the years of clinical trials, false starts and failures involved in a single new successful treatment) just makes you seem wildly out of touch and uninformed about the actual problem space.
Cancer is something like, thousands of diseases. There is no "cure for cancer", but there are treatments and vaccines for cancers.
There's a lot about biology that makes cancer fundamentally hard to treat, and the efficacy of cancer treatments fundamentally hard to measure. I'm optimistic that we'll eventually get to a point where we can meaningfully say we "cured cancer", but it will almost certainly be a cluster of thousands of treatment protocols which each have to be tested over 5-10 years for recurrence. There's no reason to expect that there should exist any broad-spectrum cancer treatment better than radiotherapy, or any fast test to determine whether long-term remission will be achieved.
Very cool! However, the amazing absence of results makes me question whether they've got a Nature letter forthcoming or whether they know that another AI lab has a similar finding...
From ravid shwartz ziv:
https://x.com/ziv_ravid/status/2102844800345251858
Thank you for sharing, that provided some good context for how to interpret this
Post content:
_____
I wish we didn’t need these again, but here is the honest version of Anthropic’s biology announcement (Caveat: I haven’t worked in bioinformatics for many years.) The good: Anthropic ran ~950 Claude agents over a large biological sequence database. Claude searched, wrote code, compared sequences and genomic neighborhoods, and found an interesting pattern that apparently had not been noticed before: a known reverse transcriptase associated with another gene and a repetitive DNA array.
That is cool. Automating this kind of open-ended bioinformatics search at scale is useful, and Claude may have found a lead a human would have missed.
But: Claude did not do a biological experiment. It searched databases and analyzed data.
Humans then took the candidate into the wet lab. And the wet-lab result so far is modest: they showed that the repeat array produces short RNAs.
We still don’t know what the system does. No function, mechanism, phenotype, targeting, defense activity, or programmability has been demonstrated.
This is also where the CRISPR framing gets ahead of the result. Right now, “it has some features reminiscent of known programmable systems” is a hypothesis for what to investigate next, not a discovery that it behaves like CRISPR.
And there is a missing baseline: bioinformatics has had tools for finding unusual gene neighborhoods and candidate systems for years. The interesting comparison is 950 Claude agents vs. an expert using the best existing computational pipelines - not Claude vs. someone manually looking through 200,000 sequences.
So my honest announcement would be:
Claude autonomously found an interesting candidate for a previously uncharacterized biological system. A small human wet-lab experiment confirmed that part of the candidate is expressed. We don’t yet know what it does.
That is a good result.
But in a regular biology lab, this isn’t the finished paper. It is the result you show at lab meeting and say: “This looks interesting. Now we need to figure out what the hell it does.”
Maybe that next step leads to a major discovery. But that discovery hasn’t happened yet.
100% AI per Pangram. I caught it at "This is also where the CRISPR framing gets ahead of the result." -- somehow this is not a sentence anybody non-obnoxious would write. It's a weird structure where the AI talks about something specific as if it were an example of a common theme. This paragraph is an even clearer ekample:
"But in a regular biology lab, this isn’t the finished paper. It is the result you show at lab meeting and say: “This looks interesting. Now we need to figure out what the hell it does.”"
This is not how people write!
I am irked by the CRISPR framing. That seems to be IPO positioning.
Good hypotheses are a dime a dozen in life sciences. Biology is very unforgiving and most hypotheses lead to nothing when thoroughly tested. This is true for something as "simple" as enzymes as in this case, but even more true for curing diseases. Otherwise, there would not be any failures of phase III clinical trials, after billions USD spent on preclinical research and prior clinical trials.
When overinterpreting these (interesting) results, you are entering Andy Grove Fallacy [0] territory very fast.
[0] https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/andy-grove-rich-fa...
Why does this read so much like Claude talking about Claude?
A more spicy follow up take :) https://x.com/ziv_ravid/status/2102850969537225149
> The sad thing is that Dario knows better.
He was a PhD student. He knows the significance level of this result. He knows that if he had walked into Bill’s office (his advisor) with “we found an interesting system, but we still don’t know what it does” and said he was ready to graduate, Bill would have kicked him out of the room.
But somehow, when the IPO is around the corner, this becomes “AI is starting to drive biological discovery.”
https://xxcancel.com/ziv_ravid/status/2102844800345251858
I'm sorry but this would be a mediocre paper at best. And if this were a student presenting this for a qualifying exam, you can bet a committee would be ripping them a new one for presenting this with no understanding of what it does.
It’s a blog post about work an LLM did though?
The pre print clearly states it’s a well defined problem limited by the man hours required to sift through the data. I think everyone knows it’s not setting the world alight?
"Investigating the novel enzyme incident in our SF lab [2027]"
I'm getting tired of the marketing.
There are so many people involved on this yet we still say things like "Claude did", we need to start waking up and being more real about how we are still in "AI + Human" land.
What's wrong with saying "A team of researchers backed by Anthropic using Claude discovers a novel enzyme system with CRISPR-like repeats" or, ffs, mention the lead researcher in the headline?
It looks like the researchers just wrote the agentic harness and the rest of the work really was done autonomously by Claude with only extremely limited guidance after.
BTW the first author of the paper worked in the Doudna lab studying the origins of crispr (and after their PhD, joined Anthropic). All of the authors either have, or are going to have, excellent careers. I dont' think they are worried about attribution.
I'm more annoyed that they announce "CRISPR-like" to hit those SV Next Big Thing dopamine receptors but upon reading haven't done any laboratory work to determine if it has any useful applications like CRISPR-Cas9.
It's totally legitimate research worthy of publication, but Anthropic chose a hot technology in the popular imagination for a reason. Now I'm going to have to see "Claude invented a new CRISPR in 24 hours!" everywhere and trying to correct it will just turn into repetitive arguments about goalposts moving....
If it requires humans in the loop it throws cold water on the hopes of replacing millions of jobs, which is priced into their current valuation.
It's not, if it was their valuation would be much, much bigger.
eh, farming still requires humans in the loop, only <1% of the number that it used to
OpenAI/Anthropic have never pitched themselves as a replacement for farmers. They do explicitly say that they're going to cause significant job loss in knowledge work sectors all the time.
Right - I'm saying that you can greatly improve productivity / reduce employment while still having humans in the loop. We've already seen it happen with farming, from 1900 -> present.
Oh thank you, yes that makes way more sense.
Woosh.
Because they’re trying to pump their stock price before their economic walls come tumbling down
What stock?
The private stock that's about to go public
Is it really all that different from "deep mind beat Gary Kasparov"?
At a trade show, I met a company that was advertising a feature as powered by Claude. I asked an employee what that meant, as it seemed unlikely, and he then didn’t know how answer so he introduced me to the CEO. The CEO said that the ad meant that Claude now writes all of their code including that new feature. They are now working on having Claude handle their QA process. I wondered if any of the devs were at the booth or if the employee I spoke to first was a dev who knew it was bs.
LLMs are really good at discovering patterns on huge dataset. Google also had similair breakthrough discoveries they stopped marketing them
yes and no; you cant dump DNA in the context window and call it a day, in the blog post it was a common tool calling session. you do can have actual ml models for that, that the llm could use as a tool.
I don't think you quite understand the loops here.
At Google/OpenAI/Anthropic level you have clusters of LLM agents working with clusters of ML agents doing all kinds of tasks. A lot of this falls into proto-RSI where the LLM can improve the ML agents output based on analysis of said ML.
This isn't much different from how people work, you can't dump even part of DNA context in a human mind and get anything useful out. We has humans have to use and build tools to find answers because of scaling efficiencies of different computation types.
when they say "claude" what model do they mean ?
no mention of opus/mythos/fable or anything..
seems like mythos 5 did most of the leg work, they refer to it in the technical report linked at the end: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/22573675ada52a8ca8a97a1a4b4326...
It could be an internal model as well.
Could also just be hired specialists internally and it's pure marketing (even if they discovered something new).
lol, it's true, Claude in the article is so anthropomorphized that you could read it as if it was a human just as well.
Don't use it for biology, Dario said, as he turned humans into Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.. I reckon that soon, he too will return to dimension X.
I call Michelangelo!
Was he paid to review the paper? His praise reads very unauthentic.
> After reviewing the pre-print, Feng Zhang, one of the pioneers of CRISPR genome editing and a professor at MIT and the Broad Institute said:
> This is an exciting example of how AI agents can contribute to biological discovery. The identification of RNA-repeat arrays associated with reverse transcriptases is genuinely intriguing and merits further investigation. I hope this work encourages more scientists to explore how AI can support their research.
This is great, but I can't help but wonder if we're going to have another post next week with a lab complaining that they were about to publish this same finding, and they had Claude proofread their paper, and whoops how'd that get into Anthropic's training data?
I wonder how long it will take for the damage Alpöge and Buckmaster have done to the perception of these AI-driven scientific developments to fade.
Not saying that they were right or wrong, but that single moment sullied all AI-driven breakthroughs that came after it, and I don't think it was ever particularly relevant, at least not nearly to the degree that it was presented in the media. But I guess it ended up being a convenient outlet for AI anxiety in the end.
I don't think of this stuff in terms of AI anxiety, I just think that the AI labs should be falling all over themselves to display deference and humility to those who made it possible.
The LLMs that make this stuff possible weren't created by the AI labs from whole cloth. They crept up and jumped onto the shoulders of giants, basically the collected (non-consensually, of course, but jingles keys look at this pelican riding a bicycle!) works of humanity. Every discovery LLMs enumerate in this fashion rightfully needs to have a billboard-sized asterisk regarding the provenance of the discovery. "Claude" didn't discover this, everyone who worked to produce the internet that Anthropic siphoned into their dataset belongs on the credits.
It's great that it happened, and I wish them the best of luck in using our work to make the world a better place. Just don't forget who the rightful owners are.
The AI labs did that to themselves. All those billions and their marketing and communication skills are like those of a local street vendor selling fake knockoffs.
This is a very inaccurate manipulation of facts that fundamentally misrepresents everything that mathematicians wrote.
Shouldnt this be "misrepresents"?
In what way?
Lots of stuff gets discovered by AI bots that was always hidden in plain sight. They're remarkably good at "connecting the dots".
Being an effective pattern matcher and next word predictor is like 60%+ of intelligence, maybe more.
The people that say "It's just a next word predictor" might as well be saying "Well, it's just a long rage nuclear missile".
the article says the reverse transcriptase had been noticed before, but apparently only Claude commented on the subsequence repeating, to your point.
I think this approach of actually doing useful science is better PR than hiring an army of influencers to shill for you, OpenAI style.
Generally speaking, hiring an army of influencers to shill for you results in bad PR, and comments like this one.
It's not useful science; it has the rigor of someone posting a vague shower thought on Show HN or reddit.
I'm not going to say that it is absolutely Earth shattering (not that they claim that), but your comment is obviously wrong. In the paper they show experimental results where they express some of the proteins and show a phenotypic effect. They don't claim an exact function either, and are relatively restrained on the biology end of things. I fail to see how it is at the level of a vague shower thought.
You really think there aren’t an equal number of Claude influencers on social media?
Yes, I think there aren’t an equivalent number of Claude influencers on social media.
Is there an equivalent headline for Anthropic of this?: https://www.businessinsider.com/inside-open-ai-influencer-ma...
Takes 2 minutes to search for news beyond the HN front page - https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/06/google-microsoft-pay-creator... https://www.inc.com/georgia-fearn/openai-anthropic-both-cour...
https://www.businessinsider.com/emma-orhun-canceled-claude-p...
> Anthropic’s head of influencer, Lexie Barnhorn, has described creators as essential to building trust in complicated technical products. Its strategy is partly consumer-to-business: People who adopt Claude personally may later introduce it in their workplaces.
> Anthropic’s best-known creator events have been smaller dinners and pop-ups in which Claude remained the ostensible subject.
The point I am making is if these companies are going to compete and spend more and more money for PR, then they should do it in a way that benefits society, which paying influencers does not do.
Let me know when OpenAI starts actively trying to cure diseases.
Personally I feel like Anthropic is underrepresented in "normie" marketing, all of my non-tech savy friends only know of ChatGPT and use "ChatGPT" in the same way my mom says "Nintendo" when talking about game consoles
On the other hand Anthropic has a monopoly on the vibe coder/tech influencer/“podcast bro” market. Claude has been pushed very hard in that ecosystem.
> Anthropic sets up Bay Area lab beyond computer simulation work, two sources say
> Startup aims for Claude AI to direct robots in lab environments, one source says
> Company to stop short of clinical trials to avoid drugmaker competition, life sciences head says
https://www.reuters.com/world/anthropic-quietly-sets-up-biol...
Aren't there unlimited mechanisms like this? Isn't this why Doudna isn't a billionaire (you can patent something, but it's easy to create another one and patent it separately)?
I wish we could discuss this in a way that didn't immediately devolve into people shouting up or shouting down that this is either meaningless or singularity.
Caveating I'm not a biologist, but my understanding of the way this kind of thing works right now is a basic three-step process:
1) Find molecules and DNA/RNA sequences in the wild and catalog them.
2) Discover interesting subsequences among these.
3) Figure out whether any useful applications can come from what was discovered.
All three of these generally take a long time. Systematic automatic analysis of known databases speeds up and removes some of the luck from 2. But 1 and 3 are still long poles. 1 has the further issue that we usually discover these in existing organisms. I recall much of the outcry over tropical deforestation back in the 90s and replacing of rainforests with palm oil monoculture today is that the vast majority of terrestrial biodiversity is found in rainforests, and destroying them at industrial scale risks losing potentially useful molecules forever. 3 has the problem that you need to conduct physical experiments, and are limited by the speed of biochemical reactions no matter what and by the speed at which human subjects can be found and ethically experimented on assuming we care about being ethical.
A lot of good can come of this, but I don't see a path to singularity here, assuming we're talking the original Kurzweil meaning there of all technological progress that will ever happen all happening at once. Data collection and experimentation on living subjects, human or not, can only happen so fast, regardless of automation. It's not computational. Whenever you have to interface with the real world, you're now working at the speed of the real world, not the speed of electricity. CRISPR was discovered in 1987 and first used to edit a gene sequence in a human zygote in 2015. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to make the candidate discovery to human application step not take three decades, but it's never going to be three months, either.
This work seems directly dangerous to me?
The study results themselves aren't really dangerous in any way I can see. This is basic microbiology, and not necessarily some kind of major breakthrough that will change the world on its own. It's possible this leads to something big like CRISPR, but most likely not. The work is more the case of noticing something that someone hasn't noticed yet. It would have gotten noticed eventually, they just did it before someone else did (assuming they didn't get a hint somehow).
A lot of molecular biology is noticing something that you can't explain or that seems weird and might be interesting. Once it's noticed the followup is often fairly straightforward and it either pans out or it doesn't. The exciting/scary/unlikely part is that the LLM on its own recognized something as being important to follow up.
From my skim of the paper, the work could only be done by someone with a pretty good understanding of the biology and an extremely good understanding of how to use LLMs and agents. LLMs are not going to take over biology yet.
You don’t see a problem with LLMs in wet labs doing biology work?
Just wait until Anthropic opens up their wetlab!
In a year or two, articles like this will either be artifacts from peak hype or evidence of the beginning of the singularity. Right?
The singularity, as defined by Hinton (and others) as RSI (Recursive Self Improvement) may actually be beginning already, as OpenAI has announced an AI acting as a "research intern" (!).
How is this different from arguing that Microsoft Clippy was RSI? An AI tool being involved in the process of work can't be the bar for RSI.
I don't think there can be a coherent definition of RSI unless people lay out their theory for how intelligence scales. LLM-assisted coding is great but respectfully optimizing pytorch features or whatever is not gonna lead to exponential improvements. That approach to scaling diminished years ago, leading all the labs to switch to reasoning.
Now it seems reasoning is also yielding diminishing returns, so all the labs are pivoting to specializing in particular fields like math / infosec / biology. They're improving due to accessing new proprietary training data and doing RL with human experts. Again I don't really see any amount of "AI research interns" leading to an exponential improvement to this strategy, they're not the bottleneck in the first place.
> Now it seems reasoning is also yielding diminishing returns
Not true. On the contrary, LLMs are developing faster than predicted. They were expected to solve a Millennium Prize by 2030... and here we are in 2026. Release cycles are getting faster. Just compare the most recent GPT or Claude with what they were an year ago.
> How is this different from arguing that Microsoft Clippy was RSI?
We can argue about semantics, but that's not really the point. The point is that what started now - which no doubt is in its infancy - will result in full autonomy quite soon (they project an year or so), with the risk of RSI causing agent development to slip (long term) outside human cognitive control/capacity.
Again, can you lay out your theory for how intelligence scales? You're using a lot of terms like "full autonomy" without definitions. Why do you think that just throwing more harnessed LLMs at (something?) will lead to an increase rate of improvement?
I feel like I laid out several cases where other things were the limiting factor on improvement and more agents wouldn't have helped, and I didn't get a response to those cases.
What "they project" (the labs) is of minor interest to me. Aside from their incentives and track record of lying, in recent months they are laying out a story that is pretty much just the plot of Terminator, and directly referencing rationalist beliefs that were published long before LLMs even existed.
How is it improving, that would require rearranging its weights and biases which it cannot do easily or quickly.
Self improvement during training, and AI self training are already happening. Easily/quickly are seemingly a factor of how much power/hardware you want to use at once.
With the level of compute they have they aren't stuck with frozen models like you are.
Is easily and quickly a requirement? Isn't it enough that over time it improves itself even if the process is complex and slow?
Do we know it's actually improving itself? Perhaps it's just opaquely sorting all ones and zeros for better lookup efficiency.
Yes. I would bet on the latter.
That's black and white thinking; it will be a midgularity - so neither.
Mehgularity
Whompageddon
Fake news to pump up their share price. You can't trust any news about A.I. these days, especially near their IPOs.
This A.I. hype makes the Internet Bubble look like a walk in the park.
Why is it fake news, and how do you know that?
If by now you still think it's all just hype, it's safe to say you've succumbed to a mind virus that renders you unable to think critically about AI. Otherwise you'd have some level of awareness of just how far this technology has developed, and you should find these developments more than plausible.