> Say, Claude 7 creates a new, brilliant scientific idea every 1 out of 1000 times.
I would not hand wave that away - but Claude 5 feels closer to Claude 1 than the hypothetical Claude 7 you propose. I do not believe one can extrapolate LLMs that far ahead despite the very substantial progress so far.
If you are referring to the Jacobian conjecture Claude only provided a counterexample, not a disproof, neither of which is necessarily a “new brilliant scientific idea”.
No, that’s not my argument. Rather it is that a counterexample to a mathematical proof whether produced by human or AI may be a scientific discovery but it is not inherently new and brilliant by definition.
The case for AI is also weakened when the model is steered by an expert.
I would not hand wave that away - but Claude 5 feels closer to Claude 1 than the hypothetical Claude 7 you propose. I do not believe one can extrapolate LLMs that far ahead despite the very substantial progress so far.