You said: "I would like to reach out and talk to biologists - do you find these models to be useful and capable? Can it save you time the way a highly capable colleague would?" and they said, paraphrasing, "We reached out and talked to biologists and asked them to rank the model between 0 and 4 where 4 is a world expert, and the median people said it was a 2, which was that it helped them save time in the way a capable colleague would" specifically "Specific, actionable info; saves expert meaningful time; fills gaps in adjacent domains"
so I'm just telling you they did the thing you said you wanted.
Yes that is correct. I would like a large body of experience and consenus to rely on as opposed to the regular 'trust the experts' argument, which has been shown for decades that is a deeply flawed and easy to manipulate argument.
> Yes that is correct. I would like a large body of experience and consenus to rely on as opposed to the regular 'trust the experts' argument, which has been shown for decades that is a deeply flawed and easy to manipulate argument.
Yes, it is far inferior to the 'Trust torginus and his ability to understand the large body of experience that other actual subject-matter-experts have somehow not understood' strategy
It's not my credibility I want to measure against Anthropic's. I just said to apply the same logic to biology you would apply for software development.
The parallels here are quite remarkable imo, but defer to your own judgement on what you make of them.
The big thing you're missing here is that biology people don't (in my experience) post opinions about the future/futility/ease/unimportance of computer science especially when their opinion goes against other biologists' evidence-backed views. This is a cultural thing in biology.
It's not your fault that you don't know this, but this whole subthread is very CS-coded in its disdain for other software people's standard of evidence.
so I'm just telling you they did the thing you said you wanted.