Scientific computing in the age of agentic AI: openai.com/index/scient... (we have a mhcflurry vignette in this)
Who's Who of AI
Alex Rubinsteyn
Why they matter
Researcher with public evidence across AI research.
- AI signals
- 3 past 30d
- Sources
- 3 distinct domains
- Discussões
- 7 past 30d
- Latest signal
- 16d ago
personalized cancer immunotherapy = genomics + immunology + machine learning + oncology
(pirl.unc.edu)
What they're sharing
openai.com
Henry Yuen (@henryquantum) on X x.com
babel.hathitrust.org
Articles & links
really interesting thread on X about the latest batch of LLM proofs for open math problems, these centered on theoretical computer science / coding theory / quantum computing / &c x.com/henryquantum...
Common in the 1960s to conflate computing with cognition and underestimate how long it would take to get from Perceptron to something like modern AI by many decades. But the worries about impact on society and economy same as today (Reading “Cybernation: The Silent Conquest”)
Their own posts
Recent commentary
I have an important confession that I need to get off my chest, of great relevance to the scientific community and society in general. I have, and this is hard to admit publicly, been using AI.
AI companies turning to biomedical research is awesome for humanity but bearish for AI companies
Tried a code review from GPT 5.6 sol after using Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 for a while and it was a qualitative step up wrt insight, high level understanding of intent, and anticipating future failure modes Maybe Fable would be as good but still can't try it with anything bio...
I guess the last hiding place for “gen AI can’t do -real- math” is interesting new definitions. Is there an interesting AI proof that isn’t either pulling from another (maybe distant) field or enumerating in some way?
Tried a code review from GPT 5.6 sol after using Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 for a while and it was a qualitative step up wrt insight, high level understanding of intent, and anticipating future failure modes Maybe Fable would be as good but still can't try it with anything bio...
I guess the last hiding place for “gen AI can’t do -real- math” is interesting new definitions. Not sure I’ve seen a proof yet that isn’t either pulling from another (maybe distant) field or enumerating in some way.
Their network
In Alex Rubinsteyn's orbit
Center = Alex Rubinsteyn. Left = members they follow (green edges). Right = members who follow them (blue edges). Top = mutual follows (orange edges, slightly larger). Drag any node to reposition; click to open that profile.