When can we say AI made a scientific discovery?
This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here . Last Wednesday, Anthropic announced that earlier this year it
At a glance
- technologyreview.com: When can we say AI made a scientific discovery?
The story
technologyreview.com: This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here . Last Wednesday, Anthropic announced that earlier this year it had launched a molecular biology lab, where Claude agents read and conjecture about hard biology problems and human scientists run experiments on what they report. And this AI-powered lab, the company said, had made its first discovery. To understand what Anthropic says its system did, imagine you’re flipping through a library of millions of DNA sequences, amassed as scientists sequence more and more of the living world. One step toward a breakthrough might be finding a peculiar sequence that encodes an interesting enzyme, perhaps. Then you’d need to figure out what that enzyme does and, eventually, how to manipulate it to do something useful. What Anthropic says its system of 950 agents found after 21 hours was not a brand-new sequence. The agents instead flagged a repeating pattern surrounding a known enzyme, a particular pattern Anthropic said hadn’t been catalogued before. But if you read through Anthropic’s announcement, which calls this pattern “reminiscent” of what led to the gene-editing technology CRISPR that “has already transformed science and medicine,” it sounds as if this army of agents really found something of note. These claims have angered some biologists. A viral post from one, subsequently endorsed by the chair and CEO of the drugmaker Eli Lilly, said that “finding a weird cluster of genes and repeats is often the easy part. The hard part, and where the real discoveries come from, is figuring out what the system actually does.” The agents helped with some laboratory grunt work, in other words. But a discovery it is not. It’s a reminder that even if AI does something impressive—like finding a pattern in a mass of biological data that would be difficult to perceive with human eyes alone—the result itself may not constitute a breakthrough for science.