Re:The Alien Space of Science
by deezNutsBCookin on Friday October 23, 2026 @08:15AM
(#50207759)
I did that with Claude research. It collected tons of studies from two or more dozen platforms and crosschecked whether my hypothesis was already considered anywhere and it created this gigantic set of data where it showed me all kinds of fields where the many parts of my hypothesis--that Claude rephrased over and over based on contiguous expansions and elaborations in layman's terms--were already or actively researched and how much of it was proved in theory and/or practice. It turns out the specific connections I made were unique and the underlying theory existed, much of it peer-reviewed and in application. I did not check whether some of those applications, peer-reviews and several thousands of studies were challenged but people were applying the science and there was demand for more and lots of work to be done, requiring specialists from diverse fields.
I just quickly checked the 25,000 new research proposals and found a few that indeed touched my hypothesis and the underlying theories but no direct connection.
Honestly, as so often found in criticism of academia, your approach seems very technical and alienated--pun intended--from the people, their lives and interactions with each other and the world, including tech, and it thus seems that your objective is "estranged" from the very thing you are trying to find.
If Claude's and other LLMs surprise when they find rare occurrences of ideation and inferential trains of thought is worth anything, then that it's an appreciation of training sets lack of humanity and their individual thinking.
Here's some idea I likely will never get to: "linguistic conceptualization of psycho-social reverse pareidolia" or "when, why and how humans were taught to not identify meaningful connections". The "doesn't look like anything to me" equivalent so imperative to the narrative of the TV Show Westworld, created by Jonathan Nolan
and Lisa Joy.
As much of a merry-go-round, cough, it is, science philosophy and personal narratives and perspectives is where scientific novelty resides, so getting LLMs to extract more out of the cattle, sorry, people, might not be such a bad idea, after all.
I just quickly checked the 25,000 new research proposals and found a few that indeed touched my hypothesis and the underlying theories but no direct connection.
Honestly, as so often found in criticism of academia, your approach seems very technical and alienated--pun intended--from the people, their lives and interactions with each other and the world, including tech, and it thus seems that your objective is "estranged" from the very thing you are trying to find.
If Claude's and other LLMs surprise when they find rare occurrences of ideation and inferential trains of thought is worth anything, then that it's an appreciation of training sets lack of humanity and their individual thinking.
Here's some idea I likely will never get to: "linguistic conceptualization of psycho-social reverse pareidolia" or "when, why and how humans were taught to not identify meaningful connections". The "doesn't look like anything to me" equivalent so imperative to the narrative of the TV Show Westworld, created by Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy.
As much of a merry-go-round, cough, it is, science philosophy and personal narratives and perspectives is where scientific novelty resides, so getting LLMs to extract more out of the cattle, sorry, people, might not be such a bad idea, after all.