The quality of natural language output from today’s LLMs seems no better and often worse than LLMs from 18 months ago, at least in my experience. It’s much harder to build a good RL loop for something subjective like good writing, compared to something with an objective and verifiable right or wrong answer, such as software or mathematics.

It's not at all clear that LLMs have gotten significantly (much less hillclimbing) better at writing since GPT4-ish. They did get better at oulipo-like challenges (writing under silly, verifiable constraints like Fable's viral 'facetiously' poem) but that's far from being all there is to good writing.

Anecdotally, creative writing communities do report drastic differences in quality between models (it is my understanding that Gemma 4 is especially praised) so there is something to it being verifiable but it's a far cry from being something that can be distilled into objective math/code-like evals. One could even say it comes down to vibes

>For example, the life sciences, an LLM could be given access to data about an organism, and then make predictions about how a drug or gene therapy will affect that organism.

Yes, biotech companies are doing this right now but ultimately they are just predictions and you still need cold hard biological data to ground them and iterate on. That's slow and expensive, especially for the juicy fields (human biology, food and crops, clinical trials) and you can't just plug billions of VC capital into the pipeline and hope for RSI. Physical (gotta procure all those labs and their equipment), human (gotta hire and pay specialists to run experiments), biological (gotta wait for organisms to reproduce, drugs to take effect, crops to grow), regulatory (gotta convince agencies that your fancy new drugs are legit) bottlenecks get in the way.

And biology is one of the easier fields where a path to RSI (if not accelerating) is conceivable. Good luck iterating on macroeconomics data where there are no replicates and 'experiments' take literal years if not decades.

>I think this is because a lot of people genuinely like the claudisms, even though a small minority of technical people don't.

My uncharitable take is that the abtruse jargon makes people feel smart for understanding it and gives a sense of belonging (as a closed circle of initiates who understand LLM cant), just like rationalists love to repackage old or unsavoury ideas under new nerdy smart sounding names.