You find me a model that can take multiple disparate pieces of information and combine them into a new idea not fed with a pre-selected pattern, and I’ll eat my hat. The very basis of how these models operates is in complete opposition of you thinking it can spontaneously have a new and novel idea. New…that’s what novel means.
I can pointlessly link you to papers, blogs from researchers explaining, or just asking one of these things for yourself, but you’re not going to listen, which is on you for intentionally deciding to remain ignorant to how they function.
So you can obviously see…not novel ideation. They fed it a bunch of trained data, and it correctly used the different pattern alignment to say “If it works this way otherwise, it should work this way with this example.”
Sure, it’s not something humans had gotten to get, but that’s the entire point of the tool. Good for the progress, certainly, but that’s it’s job. It didn’t come up with some new idea about anything because it works from the data it’s given, and the logic boundaries of the tasks it’s set to run. It’s not doing anything super special here, just very efficiently.
Start chewing.
You literally admitted it in your own comment: “Sure, it’s not something humans had gotten to yet.”
That is the definition of a novel discovery.
You are arguing that because the AI used logic and existing data to reach the conclusion, it doesn’t count. By that definition, no human scientist has ever had a novel idea either since we all build on existing data and patterns.
The AI looked at the same data humans had, saw a pattern humans missed, and created a solution humans didn’t have. That is novelty.
But honestly it is hard to take your analysis of these papers seriously when you just argued in the comment above that protein folding involves “10^2 combinations.”
You realize 10^2 is just 100 right?
You think complex biology is a list shorter than a grocery receipt. If your math is off by about 300 zeros I am not sure you are the best judge of what these models are actually capable of.
I notice you got real quiet about the math part. I guess realizing you think protein folding is a list of 100 items was too embarrassing to address. Ignoring it doesn’t make you look smarter.
And now you are frantically moving the goalposts. You claim it’s only “novel” if it invents the rules from scratch? By that definition, a human author never has a novel idea because they are just using grammar rules taught by a teacher.
Also: AlphaGo Move 37.
The AI played a move that human masters explicitly said was “wrong” based on human strategy. It defied the logic conventions it was fed and won. That is the literal definition of forming a conclusion independent of, and superior to, human intervention.
But please, use more periods between your words. It definitely covers up the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
If there’s one bad thing about modern medicine and living in an outsized society is that intelligence is no longer evolutionarily beneficial. We are artificially selecting morons and the latest pisa results are the canary in the coal mine for the idiocracy we’re heading to.
Thank you for your efforts in demystifying these fucking ads in the form of breakthroughs that have these insufferable morons thinking “AI” can now do research.
You have not said one thing i did not already know, none of it has to do with anything
an ai did something novel, this is an easily verified fact. The only alternative is that somebody else wrote the hypothesis.
It most certainly did not…because it can’t.
You find me a model that can take multiple disparate pieces of information and combine them into a new idea not fed with a pre-selected pattern, and I’ll eat my hat. The very basis of how these models operates is in complete opposition of you thinking it can spontaneously have a new and novel idea. New…that’s what novel means.
I can pointlessly link you to papers, blogs from researchers explaining, or just asking one of these things for yourself, but you’re not going to listen, which is on you for intentionally deciding to remain ignorant to how they function.
Here’s Terrence Kim describing how they set it up using GRPO: https://www.terrencekim.net/2025/10/scaling-llms-for-next-generation-single.html
And then another researcher describing what actually took place: https://joshuaberkowitz.us/blog/news-1/googles-cell2sentence-c2s-scale-27b-ai-is-accelerating-cancer-therapy-discovery-1498
So you can obviously see…not novel ideation. They fed it a bunch of trained data, and it correctly used the different pattern alignment to say “If it works this way otherwise, it should work this way with this example.”
Sure, it’s not something humans had gotten to get, but that’s the entire point of the tool. Good for the progress, certainly, but that’s it’s job. It didn’t come up with some new idea about anything because it works from the data it’s given, and the logic boundaries of the tasks it’s set to run. It’s not doing anything super special here, just very efficiently.
Start chewing. You literally admitted it in your own comment: “Sure, it’s not something humans had gotten to yet.” That is the definition of a novel discovery. You are arguing that because the AI used logic and existing data to reach the conclusion, it doesn’t count. By that definition, no human scientist has ever had a novel idea either since we all build on existing data and patterns. The AI looked at the same data humans had, saw a pattern humans missed, and created a solution humans didn’t have. That is novelty. But honestly it is hard to take your analysis of these papers seriously when you just argued in the comment above that protein folding involves “10^2 combinations.” You realize 10^2 is just 100 right? You think complex biology is a list shorter than a grocery receipt. If your math is off by about 300 zeros I am not sure you are the best judge of what these models are actually capable of.
No, that’s not what novel ideation is whatsoever 🤦
Again…these models work from a list of boundaries, logic, and rules made by humans. They don’t make it up themselves because…they.fucking.cant.
If they could make their own rules and conclusions without human intervention, then you have novel ideas. But…they.100%.FUCKING.CANT.DO.THAT.
Okay, let me posit one more question to you. Please define novel ideation in technical terms.
I notice you got real quiet about the math part. I guess realizing you think protein folding is a list of 100 items was too embarrassing to address. Ignoring it doesn’t make you look smarter. And now you are frantically moving the goalposts. You claim it’s only “novel” if it invents the rules from scratch? By that definition, a human author never has a novel idea because they are just using grammar rules taught by a teacher. Also: AlphaGo Move 37. The AI played a move that human masters explicitly said was “wrong” based on human strategy. It defied the logic conventions it was fed and won. That is the literal definition of forming a conclusion independent of, and superior to, human intervention. But please, use more periods between your words. It definitely covers up the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Pearls to pigs my friend, pearls to pigs.
If there’s one bad thing about modern medicine and living in an outsized society is that intelligence is no longer evolutionarily beneficial. We are artificially selecting morons and the latest pisa results are the canary in the coal mine for the idiocracy we’re heading to.
Thank you for your efforts in demystifying these fucking ads in the form of breakthroughs that have these insufferable morons thinking “AI” can now do research.
So many people have successfully argued against claims I did not make.
https://www.emergentmind.com/papers/2409.06185
https://huggingface.co/papers/2409.04109
ai does new things all the time and this is easily validated and explained with the concept of temperature.
https://www.emergentmind.com/papers/2409.06185
https://huggingface.co/papers/2409.04109