> Prof Penadés' said the tool had in fact done more than successfully replicating his research.<p>> "It's not just that the top hypothesis they provide was the right one," he said.<p>> "It's that they provide another four, and all of them made sense.<p>> "And for one of them, we never thought about it, and we're now working on that."<p>The Google's co-scientist still seems to make a useful assistant.
Colour me unsurprised - even not knowing data leakage had occurred, the hypothesis was underwhelming, as I mentioned in a comment on an earlier discussion. I sometimes despair for the state of thinking in science these days given how quickly people fawn over entirely pedestrian thinking and work.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43105759">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43105759</a>
Instant subscribe when I saw David Gerard's name. He cut through the BS in crypto and we need more people like him focusing on AI fraud like this.
I mean, to be fair, "knowing all of the relevant literature" is a great first step for solving a problem! And a LLM can probably be better about not forgetting than humans are (though I'm guessing they do much worse on the hallucination front than humans do- humans tend to know when they are playing a hunch). But "This paper from a lower-tier journal two years ago suggests you should look at X" is a very valuable thing to have!