Thank you for this comment, it is exactly my impression of all of this as well.

It happens again in the next video. It says:

> The team came up with a use case the teaching team hadn’t thought of – using AI to critique the team’s own hypotheses. The AI not only gave them criticism but supported it with links from published scholars. See the demo here:

But the video just shows Claude giving some criticism but then just says go look at some journals and talk to experts (doesn't give any references or specifics).

At one point this states:

> Claude was also able to create a list of leaders with the Department of Energy Title17 credit programs, Exim DFC, and other federal credit programs that the team should interview. In addition, it created a list of leaders within Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget that would be able to provide insights. See the demo here:

and then there is a video of them "doing" this. But the video basically has Claude just responding saying "I'm sorry I can't do that, please look at their website/etc".

Am I missing something here?

I'm not the person you're replying to, but in my subfield (scientist is such a broad term) I would say in my opinion at least half of those key problems that are listed in the article are basically non issues. Things really are quite different field to field.

And in many subfields there is a preprint freely available on the arxiv during those three months.