I know what you're saying. At the same time, this is someone using the technical skills in wielding a technology to make, unverified sure, discovery in a wholly different field, but in which they are presumably interested.

So for me one key takeaway is how AI could possibly open up more interdisciplinary work in our heavily siloed world.

"Will the AI work better because it was "pointed" by a Google SWE?"

Usually yes? (vs pointed by a random vibe coder)

Also the more interesting bit to me here is, that you do not find the reference on the page at all, that the person works for google at all (I only found it mentioned in his X account). With the headline I initially thought this was a official google research project, but the blog reads like a personal project.

Replace "Google SWE" by "Competent Engineer" in the title and you'll see how silly it sounds to include this kind of information.

Sure, it would be more meaningful to replace with "AI researcher working for google".

they don't mention what model they used, it's potentially relevant because they could have used an internal google only model

I think it matters because "I used 48 agents running for 72 hours" either means you invested $50,000 of your own money, or you work for a company that gives you unlimited tokens.

> Why is "Google SWE" relevant here?

Because it did not work the first two times this was submitted without mentioning "Google SWE": https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=pietromiotti.com

So I guess our revealed preference is that the outputs of AI prompts are objectively more interesting if the prompting is done by Google SWEs.