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...
Who's Who of AI
Alex Rubinsteyn
Why follow
Researcher with public evidence across AI research.
- AI signals
- 0 past 30d
- Sources
- 0 distinct domains
- Discussões
- 3 past 30d
- Latest signal
- —
personalized cancer immunotherapy = genomics + immunology + machine learning + oncology
(pirl.unc.edu)
Their own posts
Recent commentary
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.