I think the flattening of progress is the most interesting dimension to the article. For an example a useful biological product discovery with a nonlinear path to get to there, look at the Taq polymerase (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taq_polymerase). Without some NSF funded exploratory ecological research by Tom Brock in Yellowstone Hot Springs to test the theoretical limit of life at high temperatures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermus_aquaticus) we never get to the Taq polymerase, we never get reliable/robust PCR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction), which is now a gold standard method in both clinical and environmental testing! It is rather improbable to think that large language models would associate those domain connections across the topic (molecular biotechnology + ecology + microbial physiology). I also did some exploratory work with text embedding models people might use for RAG and challenged them with an open source scientific MCA question dataset, generalist embedders performed worse vs. domain specific embedders trained on scientific corpora (doesn't surprise me at all). However, if everything regresses to the median of the universe of possible knowledge, it seems like scientific leaning frontier models would get locked into this asymptotic flattening before turning cashflow positive for model vendors OR they become so locked down that only big pharma, state actors, or big ag can afford the API rates and vetting process.

I come from more of a hardware & environmental engineering background and we were always taught that projects were iteratively built via Design, Build, Test, Learn cycles.

I drive the Design and basic skeleton of the build (pseudocode or boilerplate), then pass off the rest of the Build and Test to the agent. I pick up after the test and read the agent commits/notes, then write up next steps. Repeat DBTL. Maybe spin a few features out at a time in parallel depending on how much time I want to devote to reviewing new project features later in the day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_diversity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_diversity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_diversity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_diversity

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46783260

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

They acknowledge that fame is potentially confounding: Risk factors (impulsivity, substance use, etc.) -> Fame achievement | Risk factors -> Early mortality

The authors also appear to conclude that fame is semi-causal of the mortality risk. If, taking a causal statistical approach, the authors conditioned on the collider:

Risk factors (substance use, personality traits, mental health vulnerabilities) -> Becoming/staying a professional singer <- Talent/drive toward fame

I do applaud them for preregistering the study, but I think this paper needed a little more rigor in peer review.

This is a decidedly Eukaryote-centric take. Homeostasis in higher mammals is a complex network of genes -> RNA -> proteins -> metabolic pathways

Reproduction is also far more simple in organisms with binary fission cellular division.

A more appropriate scientific term would be obligate commensalism vs. "parasitic". That actually encapsulates their need for metabolic precursors from the host, but allows for tRNA, rRNA, origin of replication, etc...present in the organism's genome.

The actual paper states that the genome encodes transfer RNA's and ribosomal RNA's. I think that's a really important biological distinction missing from the popular press junket. The primary source material is well written and elucidates a lot more than the Quanta article. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.05.02.651781v1

Allan Konopka does a good deep dive into "The Great Plate Count Anomaly" here: https://thinkmicrobe.substack.com/p/the-great-plate-count-an...

This seems really interesting for local LLM experimentation.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45687895

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

This! The amount of clinicians I know who simply read the abstract of a case study, with no real statistical interpretation of results, is a non-zero number.

Whenever I see some hyped up popular press article about a scientific study, my immediate reaction is to go to the primary literature. First, I read the study design and analysis methods, then I determine if its even worth continuing to read the rest. Study pre-registration should be a must and papers need to be more explicit about being exploratory when the sample size dictates it.