All Topics
All Topics
Technology
Technology
Design
Design
Programming
Programming
Science
Science
News
News
Gaming
Gaming
Entertainment
Entertainment
Business
Business
Finance
Finance
Sports
Sports
Health
Health
Food
Food
Travel
Travel
Art
Art
Music
Music
Books
Books
Education
Education
Politics
Politics
Personal
Personal
Bluesky
Twitter
No algorithm. No AI slop. No ads. Just RSS. Pro-human. Indie writers. Real journalism. Open web. Chronological. Hand toasted.

Questioning the Impact of LLMs on Scientific Progress

By

julienreszka

2h ago· 2 min readenOpinion

Summary

The author reflects on the current state of "Scientific AI," noting that while LLMs accelerate digital process development—debugging, stitching together pipelines, and improving code for scientific tools—there is a lingering doubt about whether this truly advances science or just speeds up existing workflows. The author questions if the ceiling is the unit operations themselves and wonders if simply doing things faster is enough to push science forward.

Key quotes

· 3 pulled
I see a ton of value here along that entire pathway for LLMs, it's basically digital process development: take each step, make it better, repeat, repeat, repeat.
But the ceiling are the unit operations themselves, which sure LLMs can improve the code of those tools next.
But if science was held back by simply people not doing the same things faster, maybe this will really push us forward, but I have a nagging feeling of 'is this it?'.
Snippet from the RSS feed
The state of "Scientific AI". I know LLMs are accelerating at doing computer work, and I've experienced the acceleration of using LLMs to do science, but it's more along the lines of debugging and stitching together pipelines of classical in silico tools.

You might also wanna read