Here is the referenced publication. Pages 13-14 show the structures. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X2...

To some extent it's still an interesting result: an independent validation of the original finding, and a proof of concept that this technique could make such a discovery.

This post can't be seen if you arent signed in.

logwall mirror https://deer.social/profile/indyfromspace.bsky.social/post/3...

Those are both dead links...

Could this info have aided AI ?

One way to take this is that this shows that the agents can't discover anything new, another way to take this is as confirmation that the AI can correctly identify the same sites that human experts can, and just suck at searching literature.

even if it was discovered, I'd say most of the accolades go to NASA and LIDAR, the fact that AI agents were used to discover it isn't a big deal.

>remote sensing is difficult and any archaeologist knows to triple check before saying something is "new"

>Francisco was very kind and shared his publication image with me

...can she post the pdf?

Seems likely the google SWE that wrote the blog wouldn't have claimed this was new if there was a public way to access this information. I understand archaeologists have valid reasons to keep location details private, but complaining the OP didn't "check" thoroughly (when she can't link to the data he should checked in order to validate it was new) reads more like a shortcoming in how this knowledge is shared than a failure of OP to check.

> This author has chosen to make their posts visible only to people who are signed in.

I thought Bluesky was supposed to be better than X/Twitter, not worse. Bummer.

Cant open the links as one needs an account. Is there a xitter gor bluesky?

Then the title is misleading, yes? Should be something like "Google SWE uses AI to find a pyramid site that was already discovered".

Not news.

Ironic going to a blue sky link that is blocked by login.

So now this apparently amazing feat that was rushed into publication is actually just an out of date DB.

Peer review also protects the authors for making a fool of themselves. QED.

The moral of the story is that if you thought you found something that was undiscovered: no you didn’t.

BUT, if AI thinks it’s undiscovered then its discovery might be poorly documented, so if you were to go to the site by yourself you might be able to explore it on your own and raid tombs, etc, and no one will notice.

This author has chosen to make their posts visible only to people who are signed in.

Care to share the source without a paywall?

"This author has chosen to make their posts visible only to people who are signed in."

Now I'm very interested in seeing the transcript/session from what the agent actually did.

We already know since before that agents takes all sorts of possible shortcuts to find the answer they think the user was looking for. It doesn't seem impossible to me that the user asked something that made the agent feel OK with highlighting something that wasn't logged in the Mexican database as a novel discovery, even if it wasn't.

But again, transcripts/session logs would make it extremely clear exactly what has happened, and I'd take the author not publishing those as trying to hide something about how the agent actually approached this.

[I withdraw this comment.]