One of the strongest critiques of AI Scientists I've heard from Profs is that training on papers does not capture the 99 other narratives that explored and either failed or weren't written up.
Curious about this approach as a way of capturing that elusive scientific "taste"
1/ For nearly 350 years, science has communicated itself through one object: the paper. A linear narrative, frozen as a PDF, written for a human reader. We've come to treat that format as the medium of science itself.
It doesn't have to be. It's a historical artifact. 🧵