GPT‑Rosalind for life sciences research

furyofantares

I'm all for naming things in honor of Rosalind Franklin, but this seems like incredible misplaced hubris instead.

Cynddl

Is it me or they very carefully do not report performance on GPT-5.4 Pro, only the default GPT-5.4? They also very carefully left Anthropic models out of their comparison. I went back to the BixBench benchmark which they mentioned. I couldn't find official results for Anthropic models, but I found a project taking Opus 4.6 from 65.3% to 92.0% (which would be above GPT-Rosalind) with nearly 200 carefully crafted skills [1]. There also appears to be competitive competitor models with scores on par with this tuned GPT. [1] https://github.com/jaechang-hits/SciAgent-Skills

modeless

The voiceover in the promo video on this page seems to be AI generated, with some weird artifacts. Right at the beginning it sounds like it says "cormbiying structure daya retrieval and lirrachure search".

an0malous

“GPT-5 is the first time that it really feels like talking to an expert in any topic, like a PhD-level expert.” Sam Altman, August 2025 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy5prvgw0r1o

jostmey

The real issue isn’t finding therapies but getting them tested in clinical trials

tonfreed

Who's at fault when it suggests feeding someone cyanide?

huslage

I work for a life sciences company. It will be a long time before anyone trusts a generative model to do the actual science when mathematically provable models are as good as they are today. There is room for AI in the field, but it's not in the science directly.

shwn2989

I prefer GPT 5 pro, which i found expert in coding and reasoning.