It's not my credibility I want to measure against Anthropic's. I just said to apply the same logic to biology you would apply for software development.

The parallels here are quite remarkable imo, but defer to your own judgement on what you make of them.

The big thing you're missing here is that biology people don't (in my experience) post opinions about the future/futility/ease/unimportance of computer science especially when their opinion goes against other biologists' evidence-backed views. This is a cultural thing in biology.

It's not your fault that you don't know this, but this whole subthread is very CS-coded in its disdain for other software people's standard of evidence.