There has been a lot of recent hype about AI scientists doing end-to-end research autonomously. In August 2024, Sakana AI released their AI Scientist, a system designed to automate the entire research lifecycle—from generating hypotheses to writing papers. In February 2025, Google released an AI co-scientist built on Gemini, promising to help researchers generate and evaluate hypotheses at scale. And in August 2025, the Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) launched the open-source Asta ecosystem, featuring tools like CodeScientist and AutoDiscovery to find patterns in complex datasets. Since then, a new entrant has appeared every few months—FutureHouse’s Kosmos, the Autoscience Institute’s Carl, the Simons Foundation’s Denario project, among others—each promising some version of end-to-end autonomous research. Even as these approaches are visionary, their successes to date seem a bit forced: run hundreds or thousands of trials and define the best one as interesting. While I believe we are not far from end-to-end science, I’m not convinced we can skip the intermediate steps. Maybe LLMs need to go to graduate school before advancing straight to the Ph.D.

… What about theoretical physics? End-to-end AI scientists have found their footing in data-rich domains, but theoretical physics is not one of them. Unlike mathematics, theoretical physics problems can be more nebulous—less about formal proof search and more about physical intuition, choosing the right approximations, and navigating a landscape of subtleties that often trip up even experienced researchers. Even so, there are problems in physics where AI might be better suited. Not yet the paradigm-shifting questions at the frontier, but those where the conceptual framework is established and the goal well-defined. To find out if AI can solve these types of theory problems, I supervised Claude through a real research calculation at the level of a second-year grad student. — Read More

Enterprise transformation doesn’t happen overnight, nor does it typically happen all at once. Yet sometimes business leaders must confront the reality of simultaneous technology shifts. Each shift follows its own roadmap and requires attention to ensure that changes aren’t too disruptive. To ensure smooth sailing, businesses must manage parallel changes that evolve.

Today’s business landscape is unique in that digital innovation is advancing rapidly, and sudden advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are shifting management philosophies in real time. For IT leaders who generally adjust to transformations in sequence – optimize one area, then move to the next – the challenge becomes adjusting rapidly to monumental technology shifts. The organizations that will thrive are the ones that intentionally adapt to simultaneous changes. This includes building operating models, architectures and governance designs that can easily adjust to simultaneous changes. — Read More

In On Exactitude in Science, the writer Jorge Luis Borges imagines an empire so devoted to cartography that its mapmakers draw a map as large and detailed as the empire itself. “In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map,” Borges writes, “inhabited by Animals and Beggars.” Borges’s map is a parable for knowledge, and one of its lessons is that too much detail can quickly become impractical — a map at that scale would be perfect but useless.

But with today’s AI systems, one might wonder if such a map is so absurd after all. Computers and the Internet have already helped us to digitize much of human knowledge, and AI enables us to scan it quickly and easily. For instance, large language models are trained on trillions of words spanning much of recorded human knowledge. In biology, systems like AlphaFold learn from large databases to predict a protein’s folded structure from its amino acid sequence. — Read More