Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | actinium226's commentslogin

Did Claude find this on it's own, or did somebody using Claude find it?

We've all used LLMs. It was certainly somebody using Claude.

If somebody shares something "they did", they get a million comments criticising them because actually Claude did it.

If someone shares something "Claude did", they get the opposite.

You can't win.


"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 find this to be a convenient distinction going around recently. Not making a judgement on your comment. Just generally:

- a person demoing something they made

  - "we should say this is authored by Claude."
- a demonstration of something achieved with the assistance of llms

  - "we should say this was a human directing Claude"

It isn't a convenient gotcha. It's about what the people pushing the given thing are intending.

Person demoing something they made is usually trying to hide the fact they had claude built it and sell it like they didn't. This sort of person often lacks the technical skills to vet that what claude actually produced is actually working as they expect. Hence the snark.

On the other hand, with anthropic's case, they are trying to say "claude did this, how smart it is" while trying to downplay the fact that they needed it to be steered by domain experts to produce anything worthwhile.


This framing overlooks an unstated caveat - i.e. people that work for an LLM company have an incentive to minimize human contribution as much as possible in their narratives.

AI made a discovery. AI is doing it.

AI hacked a system. Humans did it.


I don't really get the comments about Spotify having a terrible UX, works fine for me.

It uses 300 MB of RAM on my MacBook. Saving 50MB of RAM in exchange for losing the ability to play lossless files isn't a trade I want to make.

Cool project though, will keep an eye on it.


If he has such a good reputation, why doesn't he write well? He never actually introduces the point of the article, he merely alludes to it in the concluding paragraphs.


Seems well written to me.


> The job of abstraction as a cognitive offloader is starting to retire. Agents are taking that job.

Call me when the agents can take my high level directives and write assembly.


I'd love to see something like this but with jobs created.


Username checks out.


I tried this years ago to try to develop my ability to play by ear.

What I ended up learning is that if you want to learn to play by ear, learn to sing, don't bother with exercises like this, at least not until you've gotten some singing practice in.

When singing, you have to hear the intervals in your head before you sing them, so developing that ability to generate the intervals in your head will help you to recognize them later on.


This.

With some practice you can even get a decent idea what note a given sound is by humming it - it's far from precise, but at least you can tell e.g. E from G.


This looks like they simply reinvented PID control. The inputs to the beyond are desired states minus actual states, which is basically how PID works.


I assume you mean proportional–integral–derivative control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller


The useful insight is not "compare desired state to actual state"; it's deciding which state to control


No, the bicycle is unstable. PID doesn't work well there.

In addition, it is controlling a coupled 3D system (which is unstable). This is much more than 3 PID controllers.


PID works fine if you parametrise it right, which is what this paper does. Consider the variety of inverted pendulums etc. that are used as as examples to teach PID control.


Bicycles are stable. In fact you need zero neurons to run a bicycle, all it needs is "power" and a large enough circle to run in.


If you can't use a PID for unstable things, why does cruise control exist for motorcycles?


> No, the bicycle is unstable. PID doesn't work well there.

This is just totally wrong. Stabilizing an unstable system is usually the first goal of controller design. Different systems do require different controllers, but pid is _very often_ perfectly adequate. It’s probably the most used controller structure in general.


I don't get how this is meaningfully different from doing something like:

1. Squash all your commits in this branch to one

2. Move that commit to the working directory with the appropriate git reset command

3. Commit hunks as appropriate.


It’s mostly the same. But if you realize you forgot to add something to the dirst commit while you’re putting stuff in the second commit then this avoids having to create a fixup commit and then rebasing that afterwards.


VSCode is draining my battery, looking forward to trying this


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: