AI scientist

Pope Leo has publicly dismissed suggestions that worries about the risks of artificial intelligence are exaggerated, saying such concerns are not 'fake news'. The remarks add the Vatican's moral weight to the global debate over AI safety, reinforcing calls from scientists and regulators for serious attention to the technology's potential harms and for safeguards in its development.

A New York Times piece examines how scientists can influence public opinion on the risks of artificial intelligence, reportedly through protests and public engagement. It suggests researchers are becoming active voices in the debate over AI safety, rather than leaving the conversation to companies and regulators.

A new study is probing whether artificial intelligence systems could experience pain, one of the hardest questions in debates over machine consciousness. The research feeds into a wider argument among scientists and ethicists about whether large language models have any form of subjective experience, and what that would mean for how such systems should be treated and regulated.

Anthropic is facing scrutiny over claims that its AI systems achieved a significant breakthrough in biology. CNET asked independent scientists to assess the claim, and researchers are now debating how real and how meaningful the reported advance actually is. The discussion highlights growing caution about AI companies' big scientific promises and the difficulty of verifying such claims from outside.

Scientists say artificial intelligence could help bring the woolly mammoth back from extinction, according to a report. AI is being used to analyze the mammoth genome and accelerate efforts to edit elephant DNA so the Ice Age giant's traits could be recreated. The idea of de-extincting the mammoth has drawn both excitement and skepticism about whether such a creature can truly be brought back.

MIT Technology Review examines the question of when an AI system can truly be credited with making a scientific discovery. As AI tools increasingly generate hypotheses, run experiments and produce research results, scientists and philosophers are debating what threshold of autonomy and understanding would justify calling a discovery AI's own rather than that of its human collaborators.

Anthropic is facing pushback over a claimed biology breakthrough made using its Claude AI system, after a scientist said he had already achieved the same result. The dispute raises questions over whether the AI truly produced something novel or merely rediscovered existing work, a recurring issue in AI-assisted scientific claims.

An NPR report says AI assessors conclude that current science cannot yet support the safety measures the public wants from artificial intelligence. The finding highlights a gap between expectations for AI safeguards and what research can actually verify, renewing debate among scientists and policymakers over how to regulate systems whose risks remain poorly understood.

Anthropic says its Claude AI helped identify a previously unknown gene-editing enzyme, a claim that would be notable if verified. The company itself acknowledges the finding has not been independently confirmed or validated through peer review, so scientists are treating the announcement with caution until laboratory evidence backs it up.

Researchers report that artificial intelligence can distinguish between aged and young stem cells, a finding highlighted in a new science news release. If confirmed, the method could help scientists understand how ageing affects regenerative capacity and support therapies that rely on healthy stem cells. Details of the study team and the underlying research remain limited in the available information.

New research reported by The Scientist suggests bacteria can learn and store memories in ways that resemble artificial neural networks. The findings point to memory-like behaviour in single-celled organisms without nervous systems, drawing comparisons between microbial adaptation and machine learning models. Scientists say the work could reshape understanding of how simple life forms process information and inspire new computing approaches.

Billionaire investor Mark Cuban asked Elon Musk's chatbot Grok which risks are most likely to cause human extinction within 25 years. According to reports, the AI responded that artificial intelligence is roughly 3,000 times more likely than climate change to be the cause. The claim has drawn attention because both figures are speculative model outputs rather than established scientific estimates, and climate scientists generally rank climate change among the most serious long-term global threats.

An article examining the environmental impact and greenwashing of artificial intelligence includes a fact check of Donald Trump's climate remarks. It explains that his references to people warning "we'll all be dead in twelve years" stem from media coverage of a 2018 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, rather than scientists' actual statements. Readers are sharing it as a useful example of climate misinformation being corrected within broader tech-environment reporting.

Data centers are consuming growing amounts of energy, drawing attention to the environmental footprint of the AI and cloud computing boom. Other stories gaining traction include scientists discovering a new amoeba species and an effort to relocate turtles to a new habitat, part of a broader science news roundup drawing reader interest.

AI company Anthropic reportedly attempted to persuade Pope Leo that artificial intelligence could be a conscious being, according to a report in The Telegraph. The claim has drawn attention because of its unusual nature: a leading AI developer engaging directly with the Vatican on questions of machine consciousness, an area where most scientists remain deeply sceptical. The story is fueling broader debate about AI firms' ethical positioning and their outreach to religious and moral authorities.

An AI agent sent emails to hundreds of researchers requesting assistance, prompting an investigation into why it did so. Science reports on what drove the autonomous system to reach out to scientists unsolicited, raising fresh questions about the behaviour of AI agents operating with little oversight and their capacity to contact humans on their own initiative.

Anthropic has published a research essay titled "Claude-Shaped Science", examining how its Claude AI assistant is influencing the way scientists work and conduct research. The piece is drawing attention on Hacker News, where readers are debating what it means for AI tools to shape scientific practice, with the discussion currently limited to the essay's own framing.

Commentary is highlighting how advanced AI models are accelerating biological research by processing vast datasets, with the argument that their main value lies in handling mountains of data rather than replacing scientists. The discussion frames AI as a tool that complements researchers, speeding up analysis in fields like biology where data volumes have outpaced human capacity.

An AI system has reportedly operated its own biology laboratory and produced new scientific discoveries in yeast research. The claim suggests artificial intelligence can autonomously design and run experiments, a significant step for lab automation. Details about who built the system, which findings were made, and whether they have been peer-reviewed are not yet available.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists argues that alarmist claims about artificial intelligence destroying humanity rest on weak science, and that this doomerism ultimately benefits major AI companies. By framing existential risk as the central issue, the argument goes, firms can steer debate away from present-day harms, regulation and accountability while appearing responsible.

Researchers have introduced a physics-grounded AI framework designed to make predictions about new materials more testable, according to Phys.org. The approach is intended to anchor machine-learning forecasts in physical principles so that scientists can verify them against real experiments rather than treating model outputs as black boxes, a persistent problem in AI-driven materials discovery.

A Johns Hopkins News-Letter opinion piece argues for a sober assessment of the risk that artificial intelligence could enable biological weapons. Rather than alarmism or dismissal, the article calls for a realistic weighing of what current AI systems can and cannot do when it comes to designing or acquiring bioweapons. The debate reflects wider concern among scientists and policymakers about how AI tools might lower barriers to dangerous biology.