Is there anything new in this article? Yes, experts use AI better than non-experts for tasks in their domain. See LLMs reward expertise [1] and Terrance Taos conversation with LLM [2].

[1] https://www.seangoedecke.com/llms-reward-expertise/

[2] https://chatgpt.com/share/6a5fdc7a-d6f8-83e8-bbea-8deb42cfed...

▲

a2ff6eeb0 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I think the need for expertise is also going away. For example, when Claude made progress on the Riemann conjecture,

> Jarred's input was mostly limited to sending Claude messages of encouragement (mostly variants of “keep going” or “believe in yourself”).2 This seems to have helped Claude overcome some initial skepticism that it could make meaningful progress.

https://www.anthropic.com/research/riemann-zeta

The full transcript is here: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/8a0d1add3c637b858a9a181e98c40e...

We're on the border of fully outsourcing expertise.

▲

yellow_lead 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> Two mathematicians at Anthropic studied and validated Claude’s paper, and produced an informal note for experts stating Claude’s proof concisely.

No, experts are still needed

	▲	a2ff6eeb0 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, that's why we're on the border: AI is doing its thing without us, but we're not yet confident enough to let the AI do its thing without checking. You may notice that humans only checked the work and explained. You may also see that that the person prompting the AI, Jared of bun.js fame, is not a noted expert in mathematics.