Neuronal development and epigenomics. Dad jokes. Recovering clarinet player. Prof. of Cognitive Science at UC San Diego.
San Diego
Joined August 2009
- Tweets700
- Following799
- Followers1.2K
- Likes2.4K
OpenAI claims to have solved math, but NONE of the 377 papers actually performs rigorous multiple comparisons correction or even reports an exact p-value.
Argued with a colleague today that we still need to require linear algebra. Students need it to be technologically literate even if they don't work in engineering or science.
Am I a dinosaur? Should we cut the requirement and just let students believe "vectors are magic"?
The recursive self improvement discourse assumes intelligence is a scalar, but it’s not. You can’t have exponential “growth” of a complex high dimensional capacity. Imagine exponentially growing “beauty” — what would that even mean???
The idea of an intelligence explosion caused by recursive self improvement has been around for a long time but until very recently it did not seem imminent. Now many leading researchers think it may happen quite soon. You can read our paper about it here:
casp.ac/reports/intelligence…
Also, nothing grows exponentially forever very long. The interesting question is when does it saturate and what are the constraints that will limit it.
"Given the low signal-to-noise ratio in scATAC-seq experiments and the high number of comparisons, we used an uncorrected P value threshold of 0.001..."
Oy vey. So statistical rigor is optional when the data are noisy?
nature.com/articles/s41586-0…
This book is a great read, ranging widely from the origins of life to neurobiology to AI. Really enjoyable!
This week marks one year since “What Is Intelligence?” was published.
It was a really fun book to write. I knew that some of the material would be dated by the time it reached readers. But I hoped that, despite rapid progress in AI, the core ideas about life and intelligence would endure. So far, so good, I think!
Hearing how you have connected with the book has meant so much. Thank you for reading, and an extra big thank you to those of you who have reviewed it, recommended it, or given it to friends.
So the same lead author (Peter Yoon) published a Science paper about a new viral repeat system (VIPR) and also this Anthropic ART paper. If this was all Claude's work, is it just a coincidence that the same human was a lead contributor to both?
Claude has discovered a previously unknown enzyme system hidden in the DNA of bacteriophages. Beside the enzyme’s gene sits a long array of repeating DNA—a structure that looks somewhat similar to CRISPR.
We don’t yet understand what this system does, but only a handful of known systems share its features, and all of them are able to cut, copy, and paste DNA. Historically, the discovery of such programmable systems has helped revolutionize medicine. CRISPR, for instance, is now the foundation of genetic medicines. But it will take much more work to learn what this system does, and whether it can be put to similar use.
Read more: anthropic.com/news/claude-di…
Recent discussion over how best to release AI “discoveries” in math and bio make me think we need a system where 2-4 experts in the field assess the work before publication, providing critiques that could be used for revision. Call it a “reviewed preprint”, or just a “paper”?
Come be my colleague at UCSD Cognitive Science! We are looking broadly for future leaders in understanding brains, minds, intelligences, etc.
apol-recruit.ucsd.edu/JPF046…
4 bn years old!
In the beginning G-d created Guide RNA, and it was good
VIPR is now out in @ScienceMagazine!
What started with a mysterious RNA led us to an unexpected way of recognizing DNA, as well as some clues to CRISPR’s origins.
So happy to share these two papers with an incredible team. Links below; original discovery thread here ↓
I am concerned that progress in mathematics research is advancing too rapidly. I have therefore decided to stop working on all Milennium Problems until a suitable regulatory framework is in place.
AIrony: If we all go extinct, there would be no one left to regret that we let the Bots run amok.
On the other hand, if AI just causes really bad non-extinction chaos, we all have to live with the aftermath.
When the bicycle was invented did runners complain that it wasn’t aligned to their interests (developing human athleticism and speed)?
I’m happy to report that when I turned on the faucet in my shower this morning, the stream of water did not blow up. I can’t prove that it never will, though.
This is so incredibly wrongheaded and sad. My career was enabled by a K99 fellowship at a key and vulnerable stage. Turning away the most promising young scientists from our country… for what??? @NIH please reconsider! statnews.com/2026/08/07/nih-…
