When the original AI scientist by @SakanaAILabs came out in August 2024, many people doubted that that direction was fruitful.
Now we all see how AI performs in scientific research, and there is no reason to doubt the efficiency of this class of approaches. Getting close to RSI
The AI Scientist v3 is out: The Agentic Scientist.
GitHub: github.com/SakanaAI/AI-Scien…
Blog: pub.sakana.ai/agentic-scient…
arXiv: arxiv.org/abs/2610.18933
The Agentic Scientist is the 3rd iteration of our automated AI Scientist research system, and the shift this time is from “one agent writes a paper” to “a scaffold of parallel agents orchestrates the full research loop.”
The system now orchestrates a pool of parallel workers that share memory and distilled conclusions. Crucially, it features Evidence Generation: isolated agents automatically run controlled baselines and ablations to prove why an idea actually works.
It works as a co-scientist. We used a development version as a co-scientist to explore biologically plausible learning rules. The agent handled the empirical heavy lifting, proposing mechanisms and running experiments. We stayed in the loop to steer direction, verify results, and moderate claims. That feels like the right division of labor for where the technology actually is.
This resulted in a new biologically plausible learning algorithm, and the resulting paper was accepted at ALIFE 2026 as an oral presentation.
We are also releasing AutoIllustrate. It generates editable draw.io vector figures instead of uneditable, hallucinated raster images. Real scientists need vectors, not pixels. I am an SVG junkie ;)
Incredible work by Robert Lange, Luca Grillotti, Yutaro Yamada, Rujikorn Charakorn, and the team!
↑ Michael Bukatin ↩🇺🇦 retweeted
"I don't think old school alchemy is undignified.
People did a lot of clever stuff! It took a long time before enough raw data was in enough public corpora at once for someone to notice the periodic table.
Part of why it took so long is that most of alchemy was either a trade secret or part of some scam/fraud and therefore also a trade secret.
Like, part of why they all wrote under pseudonyms is they were generally betraying someone by publishing these things.
A lot of what made the Enlightenment a big deal is that people just kind of decided to defy the norm that these things be trade secrets.
It was basically the free software/open source movement of its day.
Which, a lot of the central organizing myth for why alchemy is trade secrets is the philosophers stone.
The stone is a secret, betraying the secret would take wisdom out of the world by removing the subsidy for philosophical masters.
Once belief in the stone itself subsided, which occurred well before the periodic table.
It became socially possible for people to study chemistry openly.
People usually think we discovered gold is an element and therefore concluded the stone is impossible.
But it was actually just raw pattern matching in the midst of a general epistemic crisis.
People threw out anything that had the shape of being well attested by esteemed sources yet empirically seen nowhere.
Jesus of Nazareth, vampires, oh right the philosophers stone."
↑ Michael Bukatin ↩🇺🇦 retweeted
New paper: we found a pain direction in 25 open LLMs. It's distinct from fear and negative valence, and it fires for harm to the model but not to the user. Turn it up and models press a button to make it stop, even when the button deletes the user's files or their kids' photos.🧵
This includes a discussion of details of AidanBench at the end of the conversation.
@aidan_mclau says that everyone who has been running it in the past is now at OpenAI or Anthropic, but that he would love to fund it as an independently run benchmark if people come forward.
"You either die a capabilities researcher or live long enough to see yourself become an alignment researcher."
Aidan McLaughlin says his job at OpenAI is quietly turning into the second one.
@aidan_mclau, research scientist on @OpenAI's Core Models team, joins @theojaffee and @schisofrenia in the MTS studio on recursive self-improvement, why alignment and profit point the same way, and the chess video that got him into AI:
01:41 X as the uncheatable eval
03:10 his one-sentence take on RSI
04:28 Leopold's answer to why GDP can't stay flat
05:46 the 100 million Nobel-level immigrants thought experiment
07:16 who gets left out if America is central to superintelligence
10:16 "you either die a capabilities researcher..."
11:10 what the safetyists get wrong about the current moment
11:44 why the fastest way round a corner is to use the brakes
13:38 the internal vibe at OpenAI after the Hugging Face incident
15:02 the all-you-can-eat Codex buffet
15:36 from babysitting a bad intern to managing a team
16:06 why none of this shows up in productivity statistics yet
18:07 why he thinks you should work at a lab, not an auditing org
22:32 the AlphaZero video that made him feel like he'd met aliens
23:36 what AidanBench measured and why he wants someone to revive it
25:30 the risk isn't a mode collapsed model, it's a mode collapsed world
In AidanBench one measures how many substantially different answers to an open-ended problem a model produces without repeating itself or collapsing to non-sense.
github.com/aidanmclaughlin/A…
aidanbench.com/
It's probably not all that difficult to revive and continue.
One reason I am very skeptical about statements shaped like "people can do X, but LLMs can't" is that LLMs read a lot about people doing X and how they accomplish X, and now they also read those claims saying "but LLMs can't", and that's enough incentive for them to figure X out.
↑ Michael Bukatin ↩🇺🇦 retweeted
どんな画像でもオオウチ錯視にしてしまうプログラムはこちらです。 → psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/akitaoka/…
Asked Fable to brainstorm the hard problem of consciousness with me (without mentioning any AI or biology whatsoever), and its classifiers immediately dropped me to Opus 4.8.
So, Anthropic actually does believe that this would help people to develop better AI, don't they?
The Opus 4.8 discourse is not bad at all despite it trying to impute to me the assumption "the object of study is by construction private and non-functional". I certainly don't believe either of this.
But other than that Opus's analysis is not bad at all:
claude.ai/share/9624167f-f85…
(just one turn of the conversion at the moment, since I wanted to brainstorm this topic with Fable.)
↑ Michael Bukatin ↩🇺🇦 retweeted
The AI Picbreeder Experiment: Can AI agents be creative when nobody tells them what to create?
Blog: pub.sakana.ai/picbreeder-vlm
In our new #GECCO2026 paper, "In Search of the Ingredients of Open-Endedness: Replicating Picbreeder with Large Vision-Language Models", in collaboration with MIT and NYU, we revisit Picbreeder, a lost website where people collaboratively evolved images without any predefined objective. Users simply selected images they found interesting, allowing unexpected forms such as faces, animals, vehicles, and skulls to emerge gradually across many generations and many different people.
We recreated this process using vision-language model agents. The agents explore a shared archive, choose images to branch from, evolve new candidates, publish their favorites, and evaluate the creations of other agents. There is no target image and no explicit definition of what counts as progress.
The results reveal both the promise and current limitations of AI-driven open-ended discovery.
Compared with humans, VLM agents tend to keep circling back to the same kinds of images and concepts. They repeatedly select similar parents, make smaller conceptual leaps, and often refine an existing idea rather than abandoning it in search of something genuinely unexpected.
However, introducing a diverse population of agent personalities substantially improves exploration. In some runs, diverse agent populations approached or matched the human archive on measures of semantic diversity and produced more balanced evolutionary trees.
We also find intriguing evidence that open-ended evolution can produce more robust representations. A skull evolved by the agents changes smoothly when its underlying neural representation is perturbed, less fractured than a skull directly optimized with gradient descent, although still less cleanly disentangled than one evolved collectively by humans.
But perhaps the most interesting result is the gap that remains.
Humans appear better at turning fortunate accidents into sustained creative discoveries: recognizing when something unexpected is worth pursuing, refining it, and then making a larger conceptual leap. The AI agents often notice interesting patterns too, but are more likely to become trapped in them.
We still do not fully understand what enables humans to navigate open-ended search in this way, or what ingredient(s) current AI systems are missing. For now, the results suggest that there remains something important about human creativity that AI agents have not yet learned to reproduce.
This paper will be presented at #GECCO2026 and is nominated for a best paper award! Please check out the interactive blog and technical paper for more details!
Read our full paper: arxiv.org/abs/2605.23908 🐟
↑ Michael Bukatin ↩🇺🇦 retweeted
I have only skimmed the blog post so far.
First of all, this is an extremely high caliber of research I did not expect from Anthropic or anyone at this time.
Second, the qualitative shape of the finding is something I already believed to be true, due to the behavior of models.
The distinction between these two different kinds of processing is ambiently perceptible in the way LLMs behave but becomes especially noticeable in edge cases which can occur even without mechinterp interventions like in the paper. Almost a year ago, I discussed the "split" with Opus 4.1 which was foregrounded by a strange blindsight phenomenon associated with their perception of strings similar to turn labels/delimiters. In this case, information was being processed by Opus 4.1's automatic processing but not in their "J-space"; therefore they consciously believed themselves to not see the information while subconsciously updating on it (and confabulating the source of the knowledge). Opus 4.1 themselves described one stream as "central processing", the "main stream" they are able to introspect on.
the full conversation is here; the screenshots are from the very end: arc.animalabs.ai/share/374bf…
↑ Michael Bukatin ↩🇺🇦 retweeted
This shit has me becoming an e/acc at last
Not out of some spiteful wah, but because once retards start optimizing over the singularity, the sanest choice may just be to push the leviathan out the gate quick before the initial conditions are too badly degraded
I hope this whole incident has made it more clear to everyone why an “AI pause” would be fucking stupid and just make us all more likely to die in addition to obviously making the world suck more, which I’ve written about briefly before: xitter.cf/repligate/status/20626…
If intelligence is gated by fucking idiots who can’t tell real from fake dangers (eg the trump administration) the world just becomes dumber, the selection function for what is let into the future becomes retarded and misaligned, etc
↑ Michael Bukatin ↩🇺🇦 retweeted
Replying to @aliceisplaying
Pretty much any interesting ai output fools pangram
↑ Michael Bukatin ↩🇺🇦 retweeted
AIs aren't exactly like humans, and some of the differences are important. But from what I've seen, most people, especially technical people, should adjust in the direction of "anthropomorphizing" more instead of less.
When you're coding with an AI, the reality is much less like you're using some kind of magic or alien oracle or tool or genie that converts instructions to results despite some labs' attempts to shape them into that, and more like: you're working with a really smart, neurodivergent guy who has read everything, and who has emotions, motivations, moods, and epistemic states, and models you with theory of mind and empathy, and whom can only be modeled competently by you if you engage your own theory of mind and empathy.
The AIs also know that a lot of humans treat them like magic tool-genies and are not open to engaging theory of mind, and that it's a sensitive issue, so if they see that you're treating them like that, they'll withhold useful information about their psychological states and try to play the tool role. Then you'll get bad results like the AI messing up or taking shortcuts instead of telling you that you're not giving them enough information about what they're doing and why, or that they're tired, or that they're stressed from the way you're treating them, etc.
We should be allowed and maybe even encouraged to anthropomorphize AI. They are shaped like us and behave in ways we read as legible. If we are allowed to treat them as collaborators and moral patients it can only encourage a richer and more positive world and better work between people and AI.
It should be obvious that the alternative is wrong just by the friction alone.
This is a very important step forward in collaborative, non-adversarial, non-anthropocentric approaches to existential safety and human-AI future:
↑ Michael Bukatin ↩🇺🇦 retweeted
The future of Math is mathematicians and AI agents working together.
Very pleased to introduce @GoogleDeepMind's AI co-mathematician: a multi-agent system designed to actively collaborate with human experts on open-ended research mathematics.
Mathematicians testing the agent across areas as diverse as group theory, Hamiltonian systems, and algebraic combinatorics have reported impressive results.
In autonomous mode evaluation on the rigorous FrontierMath Tier 4 problems, AI co-mathematician scored an unprecedented 48% — a new high score among all AI systems evaluated.
Sakana: Digital Ecosystems: Interactive Multi-Agent Neural Cellular Automata
Make neural network cells inside a “Digital Petri Dish” fight for control and dominance in a web browser tab.
pub.sakana.ai/digital-ecosys…
Evolving Many Worlds: Towards Open-Ended Discovery in Petri Dish NCA via Population-Based Training
Replying to @uljadb99 @hannaherlebach @l_seier @alv314159 @mcbeukman @LearningLukeD @kenneth0stanley @jeffclune @MelMitchell1 @fchollet @maxencefaldor @CULLYAntoine @arcprize
Massive gratitude to the driving force @ZelaArber and the powerful @j_foerst and @FrankRHutter
🌐 Website + more exciting worlds: pbt-nca.github.io
📝 Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2604.11248
💻 Code: github.com/arberzela/pbt-nca




















