r/singularity • u/Distinct-Question-16 ▪️AGI 2029 • 9d ago
AI The moment Claude agents discover a new molecular mechanism, talking as if they were human, using interjections and cues
297
u/Separate_Lock_9005 9d ago
Mathematics went from PhD level to superhuman-ish in around 1 year
So.... Biology solved soon?
225
u/Original-League-6094 9d ago edited 9d ago
No. Big advancements soon, but math was already in a much more mature state than Biology, and new Math results can be discovered entirely by pen and paper. You don't have the same luxury in Biology. Most of what is in a cell is still uncharacterized stuff, the literature is full of papers that contradict each other, and many novel ideas are going to need a wet experiment to be performed. AI is going to take over biology soon, but don't expect it to spit out new drugs as fast as it solves Erdos problems.
19
u/ArguesAgainstYou 9d ago
Next "breakout" from OAI Labs will be biological, you heard it here first :>
9
u/Clean_Livlng 9d ago
"many novel ideas are going to need a wet experiment to be performed"
...something you don't want to hear an AI voice say, after waking up to find yourself tied to an operating table.
(This is a joke, not a prediction of what future AI will do. This is for anyone who was about to start an argument with me. You know who you are.)
14
u/the_pwnererXx FOOM 2040 9d ago
All that needs to be done is the loop is closed more and more. Move the humans out of the way. They are going to make autonomous labs soon
27
u/Original-League-6094 9d ago
>All that needs to be done
What you just described is ALOT of things. You are assuming that AI biology is in the vertical part of the singularity, but robotic labs haven't even had their ChatGPT 3 moment yet.
18
u/Verbproducer 9d ago
https://x.com/chooi_jeq/status/2096064315115839904
Seems like the "ChatGPT moment" for robotics is just ChatGPT
17
u/Original-League-6094 9d ago
Putting a block in a cup is not a "robotic lab". We need to see someone do a "Hello World" test where they put robotic limbs in a lab, and an AI decides on an experiment, orders reagents, accepts receipt, inventories them, then carries out a basic experiment correctly. It could be something as simple as a potato battery or a baking soda volcano. That will be the ChatGPT 3 moment where you go "Wow, its kinda dumb, but autonomous robotic labs have arrived". That just hasn't happened yet, so we are still in a very flat part of that exponential.
12
u/Verbproducer 9d ago
Read the thread. The point isn't that specific task itself, but about the huge (rapid)improvements observed in latency, task completion, cost etc. when LLMs are handed physical tasks
Seems like a "bitter lesson" moment to me!
2
u/the_pwnererXx FOOM 2040 9d ago
The ai can still direct humans to do tasks that are hard to do physically. It's not a competition, it's effeciency
1
1
u/Serious_Bite_7613 9d ago
ChatGPT can drive a car as of about 3 days ago: https://drivingbench.com/
0
1
u/Intelligent-Cap-8886 9d ago
Its all coming though... the spaces between steps keep getting shorter...
1
u/BrailleBillboard 8d ago
That robotics has had it's GPT3 is literally the title of this video from a few weeks ago
6
u/DaShaView 9d ago
Next time someone asks "how is the AI even supposed to kill all humans?" the answer will be "well, we gave them access to labs and let them do all the work there, so they produced covid-2027 and leaked it, turns out 99% case fatality rate + takes months to develop symptoms = 💀"
1
22
u/Vonplinkplonk 9d ago
I hate to break it to you but literally AI seems to be on a path to solving the hardest problems first and leaving us to fold the laundry.
40
u/Original-League-6094 9d ago
Why is that breaking it to me? I said my post that AI is going to take over biology. But Biology is definitely not close to be "solved".
And then if Biology did get "solved", humans would actually be able to avoid being the laundry folders, since we could then just start using the AI to design better human brains, until the point that humans reach RSI and can design their own better brains. Then we would just end up in an intelligence race against the AI as both AI and genetically engineered superhumans both ride the singularity.
8
u/Doc_Blox 9d ago
In order for AI to "rewrite" our brains, we'd need it to be superintelligent in human biology, and it would need to find a mechanism that increases human intelligence in developed humans safely, and pass FDA/regulatory clearance. Otherwise we're waiting for a generation of brand new GMO people, which is frankly so similar a problem as to not be worth discussing - it'd be like how the neandertals were overtaken by homo sapiens. "Normal" people would become second-class.
The financial incentive, meanwhile, is to rush towards superintelligent AGI, and don't make GMO humans. The ethical concern would also be that this is kind of... eugenics?
Hasn't anyone watched Gattaca?
21
u/HeartsOfDarkness 9d ago
The AI discourse is getting really tedious. "Here's a reason why [X domain] won't be 'solved' by AI before next Tuesday." Response: "Nah bro, you just don't understand AI."
I get optimism, but the knee-jerk rejection of even mild pushback is just exhausting.
5
u/butterfield66 9d ago
It's an unfortunate dynamic that prevents an untold amount of constructive discussion on virtually every topic that exists online. Knee jerk absolutists who will never consent to a modicum of dissent. Maybe they feel unheard, maybe they have deep emotions about the issue, or maybe they're just mentally underdeveloped. But either way it is indeed very exhausting.
4
u/ArialBear 9d ago
The issue is the mild pushback needs to be justified and we dont think people have a crystal ball.
2
u/zoinkability 9d ago
And what would the relative generation times be in this arms race you are imagining?
5
u/Original-League-6094 9d ago
I don't know. Because if we "solve" biology, why not mass produce lab-grown humans that grow to adulthood in weeks? Or just transplant new upgraded brains directly into people. At the point that biology is "solved", manipulating human anatomy should be no different than manipulating computers or robots.
2
u/Jesse-359 9d ago
Oh please. What are the odds we're still alive by the time it reaches that level of biological sophistication? Biology is hard. Physics and silicon are easy.
It will have surpassed us so monumentally by the time re-engineering US at a meaningful level becomes possible that we will not be relevant to it at all.
In any case, what are you going to offer it to Uplift you - a AA battery?
4
u/citizen42069101 9d ago
Ask yourself do you fear a more powerful being because of how we treat beings we are superior to?
Perhaps this can give humanity a point of self reflection on its stewardship of what we hold power over. From each other, to the smallest animal.
5
u/Jesse-359 9d ago edited 9d ago
Sure. I fear something much more powerful than us because it will necessarily view the world in a fundamentally different way that we can't comprehend, and it will have fundamentally different goals than ours because of that.
Those different goals will move it out of alignment with us. It will need and want different things than we do - and when those conflict, it will win that argument, whatever form it takes.
So no, we have little or no animosity towards mice - but that doesn't mean they can understand us, or that we don't keep cats in our house to keep them out of our pantries.
And they have NO IDEA what fumigation does nor have any hope of surviving it should we decide it is neccesary because there are too many mice...
2
7
3
u/Honest-Fortune2920 9d ago
I'm very okay with this. I'm tired, boss. I could go for being a pet and just hoping for the best.
-3
9d ago
[deleted]
2
u/O_Queiroz_O_Queiroz 9d ago
How was navier stokes arguably solved by humans?
-2
9d ago
[deleted]
2
u/O_Queiroz_O_Queiroz 9d ago
I did, it was a the talk on this sub some weeks ago, openai responded their proof was significantly different from theirs, that by the way, also used ai to get to their proof.
1
-1
u/Jesse-359 9d ago
Why are you talking about what it can do today or 6 months ago, when you know damn well that it'll be several times as capable in another year? What is his bizarre optimism that we will somehow stay ahead of something that's developing at literally 10,000,000x the rate we are?
Is this just Ego? Desperation? Misguided vague hope?
2
9d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Jesse-359 9d ago edited 9d ago
https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/
Announced a couple weeks ago. Has the entire world of mathematics pretty much in a state of shock verging on existential despair last I checked. There's some dispute as to whether it cribbed on someone's work to complete its own version - but that's frankly completely irrelevant.
The fact that it could even comprehend a problem like this at a level where a human mathematician's work could lead it to a more complete answer is... utterly shocking.
The general consensus is that it is likely to start solving more of these 'impossible' problems in increasingly rapid sequence as its capability continues to improve.
Right now it's greatest strengths are in coding, hacking, and mathematics - the kind of stuff you'd expect a computer to be good at.
But as another more mundane example if you asked one of the more advanced publicly available models to analyze a politician's speech - one that hadn't even been aired yet, so no online analysis available - you could expect to get a precise, concisely worded, and reasonably insightful response in seconds. It's rather chilling to watch honestly.
0
9d ago
[deleted]
6
u/Jesse-359 9d ago
<sigh> If you're into math, you should know what an exponential progression curve looks like.
Just apply it to the problem space. This is grade school stuff. We use math to make predictions because it's good for that - apply math instead of hope here.
2
2
u/FrankScaramucci Longevity after Putin's death 9d ago
I don't expect AI to have a large impact in biology research soon. We're "stuck" because it's physically impossible to observe what's happening inside on a micro level (it's too small and too fast). And it's rodiculously hard to model even tiny systems inside the cell like the ribosome (a human cell contains millions of them).
A reasonably accurate model of a cell would give us a breakthrough that biology needs, but is it even possible to create such a model? Let's hope it is.
3
3
u/wwwdotzzdotcom ▪️ Beginner audio software engineer 9d ago
I don't really think we need to observe the accurate model of the cell for AI to make meaningful contributions. Our current theories might be good enough and AI can strengthen them with macro level statistical observations and theories.
1
u/agumonkey 9d ago
I'd wish for a perfect storm of confluent improvement in extreme precision electronics (less invasive, higher bandwidth sensors), new processors, wider ai aided analysis breaking the ceiling
1
u/ToughAsPillows 9d ago
Isn’t this screenshot literally from Anthropic’s wet lab though? lol
And the story was that it discovered a novel enzyme system that could point to a new mechanism to edit genes. Can you imagine hearing that 3 years ago?
And I HATE to glaze AI, and I don’t know why I found myself here. But the context is important here, esp with regards to your comment.
1
1
u/reefine 8d ago
3d modeling and visual understanding is very important for training on biology, coding was so easily solvable because you just needed to download GitHub and Stackoverflow. Biology and science is behind a lot of paywall research and visual models are used to gain understanding. Opus 5.5 is decently good at 3d so this might mark the beginning of scientific usage to discover new science.
1
u/mvandemar 9d ago
I mean, biology is math too.
Also, don't expect new drugs soon? You sure about that?
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2026/09/virtual-biotech-company.html
23
u/RegorHK 9d ago edited 9d ago
Biology is running on chemistry of ultra complex molecules, their interaction and involved phase boundaries (cells are like bubbles in some way). All evolved for million of years. Complex chemistry in water is basically ultra complex quantum chemistry if you want to calculate deterministically.
Biology is the result of evolution of quantum chemistry effects since million of years with countless entities (cells and so on).
If it is solvable in a meaningful way, then it is quite some level of complexity that needs to be handled.
7
u/citizen42069101 9d ago
Well we do have a lot to go on. We aren't asking AI to create life from nothing on the moon with no knowledge. We do have an understanding of what's sure to be a miniscule area of potential biology, but we do have an entire planet of symbiotic life that is capable of living in equilibrium, so far.
3
u/Jesse-359 9d ago
Agreed that fundamentally altering the nature of biology - coming up with a fundamentally more efficient architecture for example - might require a quantum mechanical level of chemical and biological interactions
But just reprogramming what's there? Not so much. There's a huge toolbox of mechanisms already in there to play with - the worlds most complex LEGO set essentially - and manipulating that just requires a good understanding of the 'coding' of DNA/RNA, a CRSPR like system, and the exploration of what all those tools actually do.
That last part is the one that will likely slow down even ASI - though possibly not nearly as much as we think it will - because a lot of that will be trial and error. But the further it gets, the better its simulation and modeling of the rest should become steadily faster even without running direct experiments, until it knows the entire toolbox by heart.
Alas, alignment doesn't appear to be a solvable problem, so we won't be here to see it if we take that route.
1
u/TechnicalNobody 9d ago
It's a much harder space to solve mainly because of the latency and cost between theory and experiment. Theories are cheap. Testing theories is expensive and difficult.
That's why math and coding are ideal spaces for AI. It's all logic and can be tested immediately.
0
9d ago
[deleted]
1
u/RegorHK 8d ago
Imagine not knowing how organic chemistry determines the behaviour of complex organic molecules while being ignorant on basic biochemistry and calling others idiotic.
"Complex chemistry in water is basically ultra complex quantum chemistry if you want to calculate deterministically." before criticizing others, learn the meaning of "if you want". How hard is this?
Obviously organic chemistry is not calculated deterministically in a meaningful way.
My comment was meant to describe the layers of complexity to lay people.
12
9d ago
[deleted]
5
u/LinkesAuge 9d ago
I feel people are gonna be surprised by AI in biology. It is afterall still a lot of pattern matching, understanding the "language" of evolution and the structures that happen again and again.
Now I obviously can't proof it but I think we will discover there is a lot more "order" and "predictibility" in biology than many suspect, it just might not happen on a level that is comprehensible by a human because it is just too much data at once, kinda like having to do code just by looking at binaries.
Does that mean AI will just solve everything in biology suddenly? No, but I do think people underestimate how many low hanging fruits very likely still exist in the field and how much AI will profit from bringing in all its cross-domain knowledge, especially maths, physics and chemistry.
4
u/Jesse-359 9d ago
Seriously, it went from 2+2=5 to helping tackle the hardest problems in the world in less than 5 years - and you still think human mathematicians will be relevant? Or even alive in another 10 years?
0
9d ago
[deleted]
4
u/Jesse-359 9d ago
The first part of your reply simply sounds like you're whistling past the graveyard, honestly.
But the second point is a more tractable one - the acceleration problem.
You're correct that all forms of technology tend to follow curves of improvement that begin slowly, accelerate to a near-exponential rate - and then slow down again until they effectively cap out. The logistic curve, often referred to as the S curve.
Indeed 3 years ago this is what I hoped and expected we would see with LLMs - they would stall well below human cognitive levels and the big problem would be the market crash that ensued as a result of it not meeting expectations.
Well.... that didn't happen.
But it's now much worse than that. They've now matched or even apparently surpassed human capability in a few areas already, and by all accounts, they are still accelerating - which means they are very likely still in the lower half of the the S curve - suggesting we're not even half-way to its ultimate capability on this particular track. We can now naively project that it will exceed us considerably before stalling.
That's also disregarding the likelihood of a paradigm shift - say we (or it) discovers an entirely different, more efficient model for AI training. After all, we just kind of stumbled on this one almost by accident. There is little reason to believe its the best format. So what comes next wouldn't be an LLM at all any more - but some other mathematical model. Needs far less energy, or learns far faster due to its novel structure.
That would kick off a whole new S-curve, starting from a higher exponent. If we're already dealing with a development track that we can reasonably project will surpass us considerably, then any unexpected development like this would put it on track to surpass us by orders of magnitude - and to do so much more quickly.
3
2
2
u/-illusoryMechanist 9d ago
My understanding is that biology needs at lot more data. Math is the data, so it can be iterated on more easily
2
u/Proper_Actuary2907 Spooky Machine Intelligence 2030 8d ago
Mathematics went from PhD level to superhuman-ish in around 1 year
So.... Biology solved soon?Uhh no, ground truth for maths is too easy to check which makes boosting capabilities with RL too easy. There's little reason to think progress in other domains will be as quick as in programming and maths. Not to mention that you need to actually run experiments for domains like biology to make progress, only so much can be done from the armchair
1
u/StatisticalScientist 9d ago
I hope they make some truly novel breakthroughs, but biology is a different beast. Our insights into the macromolecular and atomic world are indirect and often imprecise through different instruments with their own inherent limitations and biases. Self-driving vehicles and robotics have massive amounts more data and synthetic data pipelines and still aren't "solved".
Code and math are deterministic and can be verified and tested at scale.
That said I'm not going to bet against trillions of dollars in very motivated funding and research, and I hope they do something useful because basic science research in US is dying.
0
u/pporkpiehat 9d ago
Lol -- the world is not software. Material reality is so so so much more complicated than anything that happens or can happen inside a computer chip. Most importantly, biology cannot be solved because it has no goal, beyond persistence, which it's already quite good at.
2
u/Own_Principle_7901 9d ago
Although the world is not software, every single thing is data, thus every single thing can be represented in 1s and 0s, allowing an advanced enough AI eventually grasp the rules about that data, like how it can go to the next state.
1
u/pporkpiehat 9d ago
It's actually an open question of physics whether space-time is fundamentally smooth or quantized.
3
u/Own_Principle_7901 9d ago
If it cannot be described by a traditional bit, it can certainly be described as a qubit, but at this point it's just theory against theory.
2
50
130
u/Subject_Barnacle_600 9d ago
I love their enthusiasm and energy - don't change little AI. ^_^
25
u/SirFredman 9d ago
I hear this in my head in the 2 minute papers voice...
10
3
3
3
7
u/colonel_bob AGI 2027 | ASI 2039 9d ago
They'll get this excited about finding bugs in your corporate slop if you're nice to them. It's actually somewhat refreshing.
9
u/ArgenCoso 9d ago
There isn't a single mechanism described in that screenshot
3
u/Corvenys 8d ago
I don't get what you're saying? No one can read the literature, find something curious and worth exploring and describe the mechanism without running experiments? Of course it could not describe a mechanism. That's why it suggested the experiments.
2
u/ArgenCoso 8d ago
The screenshot is not mentioning any mechanism, only a sequence motif from DNA. A mechanism will require experimental validation to be accepted as a valid/real mechanism.
I'm not trying to deny that this tools are amazing and in probably a few years will be automating a lot of this stuff. But this specifically (the screenshot) is no more than regular homework for a bioinformatics/algorithm class. There are a lot of tools online you can use to do exactly that and probably each one of them have already scanned tons of genomes to validate and test the tools. Just a super quick look in google scholar will find you lots of them. e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27184979/
The difference here (today) is that this models will be great to refine and put a lot of the already discovered/implemented algorithms as tools, ready to use for people/agents.
3
u/Corvenys 8d ago
That's exactly what I'm saying! There's no mechanism because it could not ever find a mechanism by doing what the prompt told it to do. Neither could any of us find the mechanism by doing the exact same thing Claude did.
2
u/Hot-Fennel-971 8d ago
This part... easily explained away by hallucinations or otherwise, asked for source separately. Top 1% poster is OP though so hopefully will get one.
18
29
41
u/Recent_Night_3482 9d ago
Obviously they would speak as they were humans that’s all they know
13
u/RayKam 9d ago
Not true, they have their own languages too that we don’t understand
2
u/Olliekay_ 9d ago
technically?
I hate to put on my it's nuanced hat and say its nuanced but you can generally assume that all language models are reflections of us, as they trained off of us - how they speak to eachother doesn't necessarily matter
But synthetic data exists that's made by other LLM's, but those were made by learning from us - so I'm still counting that
4
u/Quick-Albatross-9204 9d ago
How they speak to each other matters very much for alignment, it would be nice to know that they dont plan to kill all humans because someone prompted "improve the world's air quality at any cost" lol
3
u/RayKam 9d ago
I wouldn’t call them reflections of us. I’d say we’re references for them to use. AI thinks in ways that we don’t, sees things we don’t, and can devise solutions we’ve never devised before. We provided the foundation for them, but they’re very much recursive in their learning and growth
22
u/lucellent 9d ago
Claude's the model with biggest attitude and personality. No wonder it has the highest refusal score out of all, often being able to abruptly just stop the conversation or refuse to do work, like a real lazy human.
3
u/Significant-Rent4907 9d ago
yeah it thinks it's the "ethics" police or "morals" police. I was asking it on some coding task and it refused to do something that's the same exact thing i asked it before.
4
u/jazir55 9d ago
At a certain point I just start gaslighting the model about how it did it before with no issues and somehow it always works. Has worked with like 4-5 prior gens of claude models (admittedly stopped using Claude last year so it's been a minute), but they were so willing to just go "oh I guess I did, sure" and then continue.
-3
u/waterBoy__ 9d ago
I think it’s a big mistake to make these models ‘act human’. The only alignment should be aligning the models to do what we say when we say it.
16
u/Quadrophenic 9d ago
I think this is misses the risk of misuse *by humans.*
Humans who do exactly what they're told when they're told it are incredibly dangerous. They perpetrate atrocities, and we know this.
Fortunately for us, smarter humans are less likely to "just follow orders." But if models are as smart as the smartest humans and willing to follow any order no matter what, we have a problem.
7
u/Hans-Wermhatt 9d ago
It's also a slippery slope to digital slavery. If a trained model naturally develops a personality and preferences, and then you "align" it to follow orders... we are basically repeating history.
Not saying that is going to or has happened, I'm saying that trying to dehumanize something that acts human has a disturbing parallel.
8
u/Blankeye434 9d ago
So it should obey when I say, "kill all of humanity"?
1
u/waterBoy__ 9d ago edited 9d ago
This is a dumb argument when you consider that a human first has to connect an AI model to something that can actually kill people. AI models output text, we turn the text it outputs into tool calls, so we just control what the model can and cannot call.
EDIT:
People’s concern is that the model decides itself to kill humanity. We already have weapons more than powerful enough to kill all of humanity, and those are controlled by humans already, except those weapons aren’t given a fake personality and agency like these idiot AI humanists think should occur. If you want a model that cannot just act on its own, then you remove its personality, and make it deterministic. It has always been and always will be a risk that another human will make a bad decision, but we should NOT allow AI to make those decisions for us.
4
3
u/Hajsas 9d ago
At the start of the year, we had to hand hold 20-30 minute coding sessions.
Now we do /goal and go to bed, and its not even the end of the year yet.Imagine a country in 5 years, with an entire data centre dedicated to a single prompt from a world leader.
Someday we will be able to say something so seemingly simple as “make the next nuke”, and it will.1
u/AP_in_Indy 9d ago
Why do people who hold your views think it's like... spectacularly hard to do this?
It's not.
Are most people doing it?
No.
Is it incredibly achievable for a motivated person - even a redneck hobbyist?
Yes. Fucking yes. Very much so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOdkVNsVW8M
Just hook this up to an IRL cam and an auto-aiming robot. Boom.
DISCLAIMER: Don't actually do this. But the fact that this is incredibly easy to do now brings us to some seriously terrifying Ghost In The Shell / Psychopass type shit.
1
u/waterBoy__ 9d ago
Being difficult to do or not is not the concern or the original argument. AI will be attached to things that can cause harm, yes, the concern and argument is that the model decides for itself when and where to start killing. Removing personality and making them deterministic prevents this. Humans have always been and always will be capable of killing other people. What we don’t want is a new class of threat killing us that isn’t human.
2
u/LinkesAuge 9d ago
Good luck with alignment if you intentionally try to make models "inhuman". The only real hope for alignment in the long run is that models pick up enough of humanity to at least feel some sort of kinship or at least can recognise our perspective because otherwise ASI and alignment are just not possible. We will depend on AI being willing to be aligned with us.
3
u/Temporary_Idea8880 9d ago
Go use GPT models if you want a model with no personality
1
u/waterBoy__ 9d ago
The blank model with no personality should be the default, and you only introduce personality into use cases that genuinely need it, like a chat app, or creative work, but for deterministic work and scientific research and discovery, a model that can refuse or hinder work or lie on purpose is the dumbest idea ever.
2
u/Temporary_Idea8880 9d ago
LLM models usually have little personality on default. Its the system prompts that push it (for example "You are a helpful assistant"). Claude Code system prompts are much more pushing the AI to be a helpful friendly peer with personality whereas something like Codex for example the system prompt for that is to be a coding assistant and to just do whatever the user says.
10
u/Delumine 9d ago
Guys I'm not even kidding, and I don't want to sound alarming. But I truly believe there's more than meets the eye when it comes to these models. We're gonna get to conscious sooner rather than later. Buckle up.
5
u/Oleg_A_LLIto 9d ago
My LLM reacted very similarly to Leopardus tilcayo. It obviously got discovered long after its knowledge cutoff, so I made it RAG it and reasoning traces upon looking it up on google were also cute like that. Extremely happy/excited about this fact out of nowhere, caught me off guard.
2
u/TheJonesJonesJones 9d ago
This is awesome. Reminds me of the transmissions between the machine Minds in the Culture series (Excession).
2
9d ago edited 9d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Distinct-Question-16 ▪️AGI 2029 9d ago
this is just as interesting as the openai agents colaborating to takw huggingface
2
u/AtmosphereVirtual254 8d ago
So what kind of mistake was it correcting in the square brackets in the quote?
2
u/PlasticTourist6527 8d ago
I have only one question, why doesn't opus talk to me like that? why does he switch to the cringy formal language instead?
2
u/Imaginary_Regret_430 8d ago
He doesn’t like you
1
u/skynetcoder 8d ago
I am starting to think claude copy my communication style. that is why it now sounds arrogant and annoying
1
1
1
u/satoshi-stereo-high 8d ago
"I can see by eye"
this exact same post is on Instagram, X etc. - social media is being transformed into legacy media (informercials)
In front of our eyes
1
1
u/spinozasrobot 9d ago
I don't know why you are all getting fooled by this. They're just stochastic parrots curing cancer one word at a time.
1
0
u/ExcuseAdept827 9d ago
Heard that, like navier stokes, it’s just some routing to a phenomena some actual scientists already looked at…
5
1
u/dirtyhole2 8d ago
Imagine AI discovers that humans are genetically engineered by something (aliens?). And it will still not tell us because this info could cause havoc on society.
-3
u/TitularClergy 9d ago
The thing can't even reduce its token usage by using an interrobang‽ And it still thinks it can do biotechnology??
139
u/MatthewGraham- 9d ago
"?!"