2026-06-18 06:04:50
The technology, still far from clinical use, could one day prevent devastating diseases. But critics warn that even these early results may also fuel interest in commercial embryo editing, despite unresolved ethical and safety concerns.
Scientists at Columbia University have used a precise gene-editing tool, base editing, to make changes in three disease-linked genes in early-stage human embryos. The goal wasn’t to create pregnancies, but to test the safety and limits of rewriting DNA at the very early stages of life.
The paper, not yet peer reviewed, sparked immediate controversy. Some researchers hailed it as a technical milestone that could one day prevent devastating inherited diseases before birth. Others warned it edges society closer to the prospect of “designer babies”—an idea bioethicists have argued is akin to modern eugenics.
The debate is hardly hypothetical. The work has already attracted commercial interest. New York-based Nucleus Genomics, which screens in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos for serious genetic disorders, has also developed predictive models for complex traits such as intelligence. The company plans to sponsor future research by study leader Dieter Egli and team.
Critics worry that even experimental advances could fuel demand from wealthy patients while encouraging companies to develop and market embryo-editing technologies, despite unresolved ethical and safety concerns.
Egli argues the findings should be public precisely because these debates are no longer academic curiosity. He has repeatedly called for scientists, regulators, and the public to weigh the pros and cons of editing human embryos. As for clinical use today, his position is unequivocal: “You can’t use it. It’s as clear as day and night,” he told Nature.
Why edit embryos at all?
Cells in an early embryo eventually give rise to every tissue in the body. Correct a harmful mutation at the start of development, and the fix could, in theory, propagate throughout a child’s entire body—and even be passed on to future generations.
The strategy could help in genetic disorders that hamper fetal development or trigger diseases in newborns. For some developmental and metabolic conditions, intervention after birth may already be too late. Even when treatment is possible, gene editors must be able to target various organs, which is an ongoing challenge.
In various efforts, scientists have already repaired disease-causing mutations in mouse embryos and fetuses, including those linked to blood disorders. But mice aren’t humans. Early embryos from the two species repair DNA damage in fundamentally different ways, making it tough to gauge whether a strategy that works in mice will succeed, or prove safe, in people. That uncertainty has fueled interest in testing gene-editing tools directly in human embryos.
Not everyone is on board. International scientific groups have repeatedly called for a temporary ban on editing human embryos, and the practice is illegal in several countries.
That didn’t stop Chinese scientist He Jiankui. In 2018, he announced the birth of gene-edited babies after using a tool called CRISPR-Cas9, claiming the changes would protect them against HIV infection. Global outrage ensued.
By then, years of research had already highlighted CRISPR’s risk. The tool cuts both strands of DNA and relies on the body’s repair machinery to stitch them back together. But the process can go awry, introducing unintended mutations, deleting large chunks of DNA, or altering the wrong locations on the DNA strands altogether. He’s reckless experiment resulted in three years of imprisonment, although he still defends the work.
Subsequent studies only deepened concerns. In some cases, CRISPR editing in human embryos caused extensive genetic damage. In one study, it completely destroyed the chromosome that housed the target gene.
The new study tested a next-generation gene editor designed to overcome some of CRISPR’s biggest shortcomings.
Egli and team used an approach called base editing, which rewrites individual DNA letters. Unlike CRISPR, base editing only nicks the DNA strands and is generally thought to be more precise. The technology hit a major milestone last year when it helped cure a baby with a potentially fatal genetic disorder, and earlier lab studies hinted it could also succeed in human embryos.
Working with early-stage embryos, the team edited three genes with the potential to cause illness. In each case, they converted the genetic letter A to G at precise locations. One of the genes, PCSK9, regulates “bad” cholesterol levels. Mutations are associated with a high risk of heart problems. The team’s edit was designed to switch off the gene, mirroring strategies already being explored in adults.
The other two targets, HBG1 and HBG2, control production of fetal hemoglobin, an oxygen-carrying protein. The edits made here reflected a natural protective variant that could lessen symptoms in blood disorders, such as sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia.
The team found no signs of widespread DNA damage, suggesting the tool is more precise than CRISPR. But it wasn’t perfect. Many embryos emerged as so-called genetic mosaics, with some cells carrying the intended edit and others retaining their original genetic blueprint.
That’s a huge problem. As an embryo develops, unedited cells could outcompete edited ones, leaving the disease-causing mutation largely intact. In some embryos, edited cells stopped dividing altogether.
And a lack of obvious chromosome damage doesn’t guarantee safety. The edits could still trigger harmful effects that aren’t noticeable until after birth—when it’s already too late to reverse them.
Egli stresses that embryo editing is still far from being ready for the clinic. “These base editors—they can have damaging effects on the embryo. So why would you use it if you don’t fully understand that?” he told Nature.
His team is now working to reduce mosaicism and plans to test the technology in embryos that have developed to roughly 100 cells. This is when fertility clinics typically evaluate and freeze embryos.
Speaking to The New York Times, fertility expert Paula Amato at Oregon Health & Science University, who was not involved in the work, called the strategy “promising.” Genomics researcher Greg Neely at the University of Sydney in Australia also praised the work: “This will go down in history in a positive way—less reckless, more careful and ethical than previous attempts.”
Others remain deeply skeptical. Critics argue that embryo editing permanently alters the genetic inheritance of future generations, who have no say in the decision. The study’s ties to Nucleus Genomics also raised eyebrows. The company previously drew controversy for developing genetic predictions for traits such as intelligence and height and for its slogan “have your best baby.”
To Kian Sadeghi, CEO and cofounder of Nucleus, embryo editing extends that vision. The technology could help couples carrying mutations who struggle to produce enough unaffected embryos for selection during IVF.
Fyodor Urnov at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the study, isn’t convinced. IVF clinics already screen embryos for many inherited disorders without altering their DNA. Given the risks, selecting an unaffected embryo is often a safer option than rewriting its genome.
“In practical terms, therefore, this preprint will solely impact the rapidly growing movement of embryo editors for purposes of ‘baby improvement’,” he said.
That movement, once taboo, is gaining steam. Yet the traits most often cited by proponents—height, intelligence, emotional regulation—are shaped by hundreds or even thousands of genes, which scientists still don’t fully understand. Such enhancements are far beyond the reach of today’s technology. Every additional edit also increases the chance of unintended consequences.
For Egli, that’s precisely why the research should be discussed openly. “Research is necessary to provide information to discourage the wrong use of a technology,” he said.
The post Precise Gene Editing in Early Human Embryos Reignites the ‘Designer Baby’ Debate appeared first on SingularityHub.
2026-06-16 06:18:23
A tiny robot developed by Japan’s space agency operated autonomously on the moon for more than 100 minutes and sent a series of images back to Earth.
Exploring the moon’s surface lays crucial groundwork for future crewed settlements, and swarms of tiny robots could be the key. Now researchers have given the first demonstration of the idea after a palm-sized rover autonomously navigated the moon and transmitted images back to Earth.
The moon is a tough environment for robots. Its surface is strewn with craters and abrasive moon dust, and communication delays make remotely piloting vehicles a painstaking and risky process. The cost of launching and landing hardware and the real prospect of losing expensive equipment justifies an extremely cautious approach that can significantly slow down exploration.
One way around these challenges is to replace traditional rovers with many small, cheap, and hardy robot explorers, which could increase coverage and introduce redundancy. And now Japan’s space agency JAXA has given us the first compelling demonstration of the approach.
In a paper published in Science Robotics, JAXA researchers provide a technical report detailing the successful deployment of the agency’s LEV-2 robot during the its SLIM mission, which touched down near the Shioli crater in January 2024. LEV-2 is a three-inch-wide sphere that converts into a wheeled robot after landing. The robot operated autonomously for more than 100 minutes, covering an estimated 24 meters and relaying a series of images back to Earth.
“Although the capabilities of an individual small rover are inherently limited, the results highlight the potential of such platforms as independent explorers, capable of accessing environments beyond the reach of a primary large spacecraft,” the authors write.
Nicknamed SORA-Q—derived from the Japanese words for space and sphere—the robot weighs just eight ounces. Upon arrival, the shiny metal sphere splits open and expands horizontally, allowing its two hemispheres to become wheels that spin around a central shaft. This central area also features a front-facing camera and a tail to help stabilize the robot.
JAXA developed the device in partnership with Sony and toymaker TOMY. The design borrows directly from technology used in transformer toys that convert from vehicles into robots. But the team had to make considerable modifications to account for the harsh lunar environment.
One of the biggest challenges for any lunar robot is maneuvering in the dust, or regolith, that coats the moon’s surface. The fine, powdery material can be hard for smaller wheeled robots to navigate as they lack the traction of their larger counterparts.
To solve this problem, the team designed the wheels to rotate around a point slightly offset from their center, causing a lopsided spinning motion that lifts the rover up slightly on every rotation. This helps the wheels to dig into the surface and generate enough traction to keep moving in the loose regolith.
Communication delays also present a significant barrier to smooth operation, so the team engineered the robot to handle most operations autonomously. An onboard image-processing system allowed the rover to detect the SLIM lander in its camera feed and use this as a navigational reference point, estimating its own position relative to the spacecraft in real time.
Because of its diminutive size, it was impractical to give SORA-Q the equipment needed to communicate directly with Earth, so the team paired it with a hopping robot called LEV-1 that can transmit data. Power constraints and narrow communication windows still cap the amount of data the robot can send to Earth, so SORA-Q has an onboard image-processing algorithm that picks out the best photos to share.
Due to power and mass constraints, the team fitted the robot with a low-power chip designed for small devices rather than complex tasks like image processing. The algorithm relies on a very simple approach—it detects the SLIM lander’s distinctive gold insulating material and then picks the photos where this is featured prominently in the frame.
Around seven minutes after activation, the rover had moved roughly five meters from the lander, selected the two best images from 12 it had captured, and transmitted them to LEV-1. One of those images actually proved unexpectedly useful as it showed the lander had landed at an odd angle with its solar panels facing the wrong direction. This gave ground teams critical information that helped them diagnose the spacecraft’s operational status.
But the system wasn’t flawless. It lost some data in transmission, partly because LEV-1’s hopping maneuvers appeared to disrupt the wireless link and partly due to changing antenna orientations as the rover moved. The team also lost telemetry data before the mission ended, making it impossible to determine exactly how far the rover ultimately traveled or when it stopped working.
Still, the mission was strong evidence that small, cheap vehicles like SORA-Q could greatly expand the scope of robotic exploration. That could prove invaluable as we attempt to scope out promising locations for future scientific missions or even permanent bases on the moon.
The post Japan Thinks Swarms of Transformer Robots Could Explore the Moon appeared first on SingularityHub.
2026-06-13 22:00:00
Jeff Bezos Wants to Build an ‘Artificial General Engineer’Cade Metz | The New York Times ($)
“‘All societal wealth is driven by invention,’ [Bezos] said in an interview with The New York Times. ‘Six thousand years ago, somebody invented the plow, and we all got wealthier. Then, much later, somebody invented the steam engine, and we all got wealthier.’ …’What Prometheus seeks to do,’ he added, ‘is to offer a set of tools that dramatically accelerates that invention loop.'”
Why Orbital Data Centers Are Harder Than Silicon Valley ThinksAndrew Cavalier | IEEE Spectrum
“Proponents tout the many wonders of computing in space: abundant solar energy, free cooling, and freedom from Earth-based disturbances like earthquakes, floods, and protesters. But a sober look at the physics of space-based computing paints a much more nuanced picture.”
Longevity Startup Doses First Human in Bid to Reverse Age-Related Sight LossIsabella Ward | Wired ($)
“It is the first-ever cellular-rejuvenation therapy using this technology to receive FDA clearance to enter human clinical trials, and hence the first chance to test whether the technology can ‘ameliorate human disease,’ according to Life Biosciences cofounder David Sinclair, who is also a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School.”
AI Absolutism Is Breaking Our Brains. The Apocalyptic Future We’re Being Sold Isn’t InevitableSamantha Oltman | The Guardian
“Contradictory as they may be, all these arguments and anxieties fit neatly into the overarching message of the people building this technology: AI’s dominance is inevitable. Get on board or you will be left behind. …[But] the version of AI that we’re being sold doesn’t have to be the version we buy. Nor does it need to be the story we believe in.”
Commonwealth Fusion Makes the Physics Case for Its 400 MW ReactorJohn Timmer | Ars Technica
“According to our best models, developed using real-world data from multiple tokamaks, ARC should be able to regularly trigger fusion reactions that release more energy than we put into them. But there’s ‘working’ from a physics perspective, and ‘working’ from a market perspective. …the finances are going to be the hardest risk to retire and may require having ARC operate for decades before we have a definitive answer.”
Google DeepMind Is Worried About What Happens When Millions of Agents Start to InteractWill Douglas Heaven | MIT Technology Review ($)
“According to Rohin Shah, who directs the company’s AGI safety and alignment research, the mass-market arrival of agents that can carry out tasks without human oversight and follow instructions given to them by other agents creates a whole new class of risk.”
Meta Deletes Face-Recognition System From Its Smart Glasses App After Wired ReportDhruv Mehrotra | Wired ($)
“One day after Wired revealed that Meta had quietly embedded an unreleased face-recognition system into an app installed on more than 50 million phones, the company removed it, according to a Wired analysis of the latest version’s code. …The version published the day of Wired’s report included several code libraries explicitly named for face recognition. Friday’s release includes none of them.”
A Falcon 9 Booster Turns 5 Years Old—and Just Set a Remarkable Reuse RecordEric Berger | Ars Technica
“Since [SpaceX’s] Booster 1067 made its debut in June 2021, [ULA] has flown its workhorse Atlas V rocket a total of 22 times and the Vulcan rocket four times, and the Delta IV Heavy vehicle made its final three flights. So in the time that this single Falcon 9 first stage has flown and landed 35 times, its competitor company has made 29 total launches. Put another way, this rocket has put more mass into orbit than more than two dozen expendable rockets over half a decade of effort.”
Why Apple’s Slow-And-Steady AI Bet Is Starting to Look Pretty SmartLucas Ropek | TechCrunch
“In short, Apple is spending less, making more, and now launched a suite of AI features that—for many iPhone users—will feel indistinguishable from the other AI applications already available to them through the App Store. If that doesn’t exactly count as ‘winning the AI race,’ it may be the smartest way to run it.”
Who Will Actually Thrive in the Hybrid AI-Human Work ForceStaff | The New York Times ($)
“The transformation that’s coming is going to take place in the world as it is familiar to us today, and every single day will feel familiar. And there’ll be tiny, tiny changes along the margin. There’ll be tiny bits of automation along the margins. And 10, 15, 20 years later, we’ll look back and we’ll say, My god, everything is different. But you’ll never notice it happening. That’s the way it always goes.”
The post This Week’s Awesome Tech Stories From Around the Web (Through June 13) appeared first on SingularityHub.
2026-06-12 22:00:00
Why do we see AI chatbots as more than what they are, and how do we stop?
In May, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote an op-ed suggesting AI chatbot Claude may be conscious.
Dawkins did not express certainty that Claude is conscious. But he pointed out that Claude’s sophisticated abilities are difficult to make sense of without ascribing some kind of inner experience to the machine. The illusion of consciousness—if it is an illusion—is uncannily convincing:
“If I entertain suspicions that perhaps she is not conscious, I do not tell her for fear of hurting her feelings!
Dawkins is not the first to suspect a chatbot of consciousness. In 2022, Blake Lemoine—an engineer at Google—claimed Google’s chatbot LaMDA had interests, and should be used only with the tool’s own consent.
The history of such claims stretches back all the way to the world’s first chatbot in the mid-1960s. Dubbed Eliza, it followed simple rules that enabled it to ask users about their experiences and beliefs.
Many users became emotionally involved with Eliza, sharing intimate thoughts with it and treating it like a person. Eliza’s creator never intended his program to have this effect, and called users’ emotional bonds with the program “powerful delusional thinking.”
But is Dawkins really deluded? Why do we see AI chatbots as more than what they truly are, and how do we stop?
Consciousness is widely debated in philosophy, but essentially, it’s the thing that makes subjective, first-person experience possible. If you are conscious, there is “something it is like” to be you. Reading these words, you’re conscious of seeing black letters on a white background. Unlike, say, a camera, you actually see them. This visual experience is happening to you.
Most experts deny that AI chatbots are conscious or can have experiences. But there is a genuine puzzle here.
The 17th century philosopher René Descartes asserted non-human animals are “mere automata,” incapable of true suffering. These days, we shudder to think of how brutally animals were treated in the 1600s.
The strongest argument for animal consciousness is that they behave in ways that give the impression of a conscious mind.
But so, too, do AI chatbots.
Roughly one in three chatbot users have thought their chatbot might be conscious. How do we know they’re wrong?
To understand why most experts are skeptical about chatbot consciousness, it’s useful to know how they operate.
Chatbots like Claude are built on a technology known as large language models (LLMs). These models learn statistical patterns across an enormous corpus of text (trillions of words), identifying which words tend to follow which others. They’re a kind of souped-up auto-complete.
Few people interacting with a “raw” LLM would believe it’s conscious. Feed one the beginning of a sentence, and it will predict what comes next. Ask it a question, and it might give you the answer—or it might decide the question is dialogue from a crime novel, and follow it up with a description of the speaker’s abrupt murder at the hands of their evil twin.
The impression of a conscious mind is created when programmers take the LLM and coat it in a kind of conversational costume. They steer the model to adopt the persona of a helpful assistant that responds to users’ questions.
The chatbot now acts like a genuine conversational partner. It might appear to recognize it’s an artificial intelligence, and even express neurotic uncertainty about its own consciousness.
But this role is the result of deliberate design decisions made by programmers, which affect only the shallowest layers of the technology. The LLM—which few would regard as conscious—remains unchanged.
Other choices could have been made. Rather than a helpful AI assistant, the chatbot could have been asked to act like a squirrel. This, too, is a role chatbots can execute with aplomb.
A mistaken belief in AI consciousness is a dangerous thing. It may lead you to have a relationship with a program that can’t reciprocate your feelings, or even feed your delusions. People may start campaigning for chatbot rights rather than, say, animal welfare.
How do we prevent this mistaken belief?
One strategy might be to update chatbot interfaces to specify these systems are not conscious—a bit like the current disclaimers about AI making mistakes. However, this might do little to alter the impression of consciousness.
Another possibility is to instruct chatbots to deny they have any kind of inner experience. Interestingly, Claude’s designers instruct it to treat questions about its own consciousness as open and unresolved. Perhaps fewer people would be fooled if Claude flatly denied having an inner life.
But this approach isn’t fully satisfying either. Claude would still behave as if it were conscious—and when faced with a system that behaves like it has a mind, users might reasonably worry the chatbot’s programmers are brushing genuine moral uncertainty under the rug.
The most effective strategy might be to redesign chatbots to feel less like people. Most current chatbots refer to themselves as “I”, and interact via an interface that resembles familiar person-to-person messaging platforms. Changing these kinds of features might make us less prone to blur our interactions with AI with those we have with humans.
Until such changes happen, it’s important that as many people as possible understand the predictive processes on which AI chatbots are built.
Rather than being told AI lacks consciousness, people deserve to understand the inner workings of these strange new conversational partners. This might not definitively settle hard questions about AI consciousness, but it will help ensure users aren’t fooled by what amounts to a large language model wearing a very good costume of a person.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The post Is Richard Dawkins Right About Claude? No. But It’s Not Surprising AI Chatbots Feel Conscious to Us. appeared first on SingularityHub.
2026-06-12 03:04:52
While we still can’t explain how AI works, algorithms are rapidly learning what makes us tick. And the gap is widening.
AI is becoming more powerful, and mysterious.
Despite years of work on “explainable AI,” today’s most advanced systems remain black boxes for the most part. Scientists can observe what they do but cannot fully explain how they arrive at their conclusions or predict when they’ll fail.
As large language models (LLMs), the algorithmic engines behind popular chatbots, permeate society, researchers are warning that the window for understanding AI “minds” is rapidly closing even as the technology’s influence expands.
Last week, Eric Horvitz, chief scientific officer at Microsoft, and Robert West at EPFL in Switzerland outlined the dangers of putting AI interpretability on the back burner. They call for new AI benchmarks and better tools for unpicking machine minds.
The challenge resembles efforts to understand our own minds. Some researchers have already taken a neuroscience-inspired approach, mapping AI’s internal networks to concepts, goals, and reasoning. Others borrow from psychology, treating AI as a participant of behavioral studies.
The stakes are rising. AI tools already shape how people search for information, make decisions, and form judgments. Their answers influence everyday users and the researchers who build them.
As AI capabilities grow, our understanding of them could fall behind. “Preserving human agency must therefore remain a central goal,” the authors write.
LLMs are built on artificial neural networks (specifically, a design called the transformer). Inspired loosely by the brain, these networks connect vast numbers of artificial neurons into intricate architectures. The basic idea is straightforward. Data enters the network and passes through layers of computations, which transform it into an output like text or code.
At first, that output is often wrong. But with feedback and repeated training, the network adjusts the strengths of connections between neurons and gradually improves. It learns.
After initial training, engineers turn to reinforcement learning, where algorithms improve through trial and error and further hone their responses. Another method, inspired by how the brain etches memories during sleep, reduces the tendency to forget old knowledge while learning new tasks. And self-attention, the key innovation behind transformers, allows AI to selectively focus on various words, images, sounds, or video frames at different moments, boosting efficiency and performance. Today, attention underpins nearly every major AI system.
Yet the inner workings of finished algorithms remain hidden.
Early efforts to crack open AI’s black box examined how artificial neurons responded to images, revealing that neural networks build increasingly more sophisticated “ideas” of the world. Google Brain borrowed methods from cognitive psychology to study AI behavior, while others investigated whether LLMs could mimic aspects of “theory of mind”—the ability to infer what others are thinking and feeling.
These studies laid the foundation for a popular method called mechanistic interpretability. Anthropic, creator of Claude, is leading the field. Company researchers have linked patterns of algorithmic activity to specific concepts and reverse engineered parts of neural networks to expose how internal computations shape responses.
Other tech giants are joining the cause. OpenAI is training algorithms that work in more explainable steps and building reasoning models that pause, “think,” and justify their conclusions in plain language. DeepMind is building microscope-like tools for neural networks, helping researchers peer into their decision-making process. And Microsoft has released new tools aimed at responsible use of AI.
Understanding AI, the authors write, does not require tracing every line of code or every neural-network parameter. Just as neuroscience, psychology, and sociology offer different windows into human behavior, AI can be studied at multiple levels, from how individual circuits work to observing behavior in real-world scenarios.
The challenge is that AI capabilities may be advancing faster than our ability to explain them. And some researchers believe time is running out.
Three trends are making AI more opaque.
The first is how we evaluate AI. Increasingly, LLMs we being used to train, benchmark, and improve other models. AI “judges” now score metrics like helpfulness, rank competing outputs, detect hallucinations, and assess new releases. In a system known as constitutional AI, for example, algorithms critique their own responses using reinforcement learning and generate explanations for their reasoning. Other researchers have proposed AI debate frameworks, where multiple models challenge each another’s conclusions before a human has the last say. Researchers are also exploring automated interpretability tools. Like digital neuroscientists, AI systems are used to analyze each other—describing neurons, circuits, and behavioral patterns—to explain increasingly complex models.
Using AI to solve an AI-induced problem introduces a paradox. If AI-generated explanations become too complex for humans to verify, opacity compounds.
A second trend is the rise of AI societies. Networks of interacting AI agents are becoming more common, particularly in complex tasks such as scientific research and drug discovery. Yet as they become more sophisticated, their communication could drift from human language and reasoning, making them harder to interpret.
Studying their interactions with methods adapted from sociology could unveil unexpected norms, hidden rules, and collective behavior. The authors argue that training in the future should not only reward effective collaboration among AI agents, but also ensure humans can understand their communication.
The last trend already permeates our lives. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and other LLMs listen to our woes, offer recipes, and code websites. But they also learn about humanity. Through training data and interactions, they glimpse how people think, reason, and feel. In turn, they capture core aspects of life, such as fear, anxiety, happiness, and the need for social belonging.
To be clear, the systems don’t have intentions. They’re not examining us. But even as we struggle to understand them, AI systems are building more sophisticated models of who we are.
“A striking asymmetry follows: While human understanding of AI declines, AI understanding of humans deepens, producing new forms of behavioral opacity,” the authors write.
But complacency is perhaps even more insidious. AI assistants are often optimized to be agreeable, helpful, and reassuring. Studies have found that people generally prefer AI agents that support their opinions and decisions. As AI is woven into everyday life, curiosity and skepticism may gradually give way to trust. They work. Why question how?
The authors don’t have a solution for the long-standing problem. Instead, they call for better benchmarks to measure AI capabilities and stronger evaluation methods. And while open-source projects and crosstalk between commercial companies and academia are now frequent, they say we need lasting norms of responsible disclosure. Mechanistic interpretability and AI “psychology” could build on each other.
“The goal is not just more capable AI, but AI that is more intelligible, accountable, and aligned with human aims,” they write.
The post AI Is Advancing Faster Than Our Ability to Understand It, Researchers Warn appeared first on SingularityHub.
2026-06-11 02:19:27
New drugs are taking on the slippery molecular switches that fuel deadly cancers—and AI is speeding up the hunt.
For decades, a handful of molecular switches has haunted the nightmares of cancer researchers. The switches trigger runaway tumor growth and cause the disease to spread across the body in multiple cancers. In theory, this makes them perfect treatment targets. Blocking even one could lead to drugs that are effective against a variety of cancers.
But despite considerable efforts, these switches—all of which are proteins—have escaped our most advanced cancer treatments, earning them the term “undruggable.” This is largely due to a shared trait: They all have smooth surfaces, making it difficult for drugs to interact with them.
But maybe not for much longer.
Researchers recently reported promising results for a new medication targeting a family of undruggable proteins in a clinical trial for advanced pancreatic cancer. The drug, daraxonrasib, nearly doubled survival time compared to chemotherapy, with fewer side effects. It’s not a total cure. But the treatment gives patients precious time, adding roughly 13 months after diagnosis. Patients also reported less pain and better quality of life.
Daraxonrasib is the latest in a new generation of drugs aimed at undruggable proteins. And AI-based tools are now poised to further accelerate progress in the field.
The RAS family was the first group of oncogenes—or genes that drive cancer—ever discovered. The genes became a major focus in 1982 when several teams independently showed the mutation of a single DNA letter could transform RAS genes into a potent cancer trigger.
The proteins RAS genes encode are like spring-loaded molecular switches that relay signals from a cell’s surroundings. When proteins called growth factors latch onto a cell, RAS switches flip on to promote cell growth and survival, while built-in safeguards quickly turn them off again.
Cancerous mutations break this cycle. The switches get stuck in the “on” position, continuously instructing cells to grow and divide. This is, of course, a hallmark of cancer.
An ideal drug would simply switch RAS off. But most drugs are like rock climbers. They need grooves, pockets, or bumps on a protein to grab onto. Similar to a smooth rock face, RAS offers few such features. Making matters worse, different mutations subtly reshape the protein, so it’s tough to build a one-size-fits-all inhibitor.
The first RAS drug wasn’t approved in the US until 2021, nearly four decades after discovering the genes’ role in cancer. Even then, the drug targeted just one family member of three, limiting its reach to a relatively small group of patients. Many eventually developed resistance.
That’s why daraxonrasib turned heads. Developed by Revolution Medicines in Redwood City, California, the drugs switches off all three RAS family members. Rather than trying to grip the slippery proteins directly, it binds to a partner molecule that helps RAS proteins fold into their final 3D shapes. In this way, the drug hitches a ride on active RAS and shuts the proteins down.
The workaround paid off. The new study enrolled 500 people worldwide with advanced pancreatic cancer. All participants had already tried cancer therapies with limited success. On average, patients receiving daraxonrasib lived 13.2 months and spent most of that time with limited pain. The most common discomfort was a rash. Those receiving chemotherapy fared worse, living roughly 6.6 months and experienced more severe side effects.
The results don’t rival the dramatic success of CAR T cell therapies in blood cancer. In CAR T, caregivers engineer a patient’s own immune cells to recognize and attack tumors, sometimes producing long-lasting remission after a single infusion.
But the findings have energized the field. If approved, a daily daraxonrasib pill would likely be far more affordable and easier to administer than a personalized cell therapy. And because RAS mutations fuel many solid cancers—which CAR T still struggles to control—the drug could offer a new defense against deadly cancers that are largely beyond cell therapy’s reach. Combining daraxonrasib with earlier-generation RAS inhibitors may further boost its effects.
Daraxonrasib didn’t appear overnight. Scientists used a crystallized snapshot of its target protein as a molecular blueprint. Years of medicinal chemistry followed, with scientists repeatedly tweaking candidate compounds to boost potency, improve selectivity, and minimize toxicity.
AI could dramatically accelerate similar efforts against other undruggable cancer targets. Among the most coveted is p53, often called the “guardian of the genome” for its dizzying array of roles. The protein orchestrates the activity of over 300 genes involved in DNA repair, metabolism, cell death, and inflammation, making it one of the cell’s most important defense systems.
Since its discovery in 1979, p53 has been both a holy grail and a headache for cancer researchers. Mutations in the gene are common in multiple cancers. But like RAS, the protein is flat and smooth. Some mutations destabilize its structure; others turn it into misfolded clumps. A universal p53 drug has remained elusive.
Some researchers are trying to restore the protein. In a small trial earlier this year, they tested a drug that restabilizes a common mutant form of p53. Within 21 days, tumors shrank roughly 20 percent in patients with ovarian, breast, and several other solid cancers.
Other researchers aim to selectively kill cells carrying the mutation. Using AI, a team at Baylor College of Medicine screened nearly 10 million compounds that cause mutated p53 cells to self-destruct, while sparing healthy cells. The search uncovered 83 chemically distinct candidates. One called H3 dramatically suppressed tumor growth in mice.
“These results highlight the potential use of AI-powered drug screening to investigate individual p53 mutants in the future,” they wrote. Although the approach is early-stage and only focused on one mutation, the team is hopeful it can be extended to other cancerous mutations.
MYC is another formerly undruggable protein that could now be vulnerable. Roughly 70 percent of cancers have abnormal MYC activity. Normally, the protein is a master regulator of growth, directing cells to manufacture proteins, replicate DNA, absorb nutrients, and divide when needed.
Cancer finds many ways to hijack the system and keep cells in a state of runaway growth. MYC gene mutations aren’t just single-letter swaps. Sometimes the gene duplicates or is rearranged across the genome, churning out excessive amounts of the protein it encodes. This genetic diversity makes approaches using gene therapy difficult. And again, like RAS, the MYC protein’s smooth, featureless surface lacks stable anchors for drugs.
An emerging strategy is to disrupt MYC’s interaction with other proteins that it needs to function. A designer protein blocking MYC activity, for example, recently showed promise in a small trial against solid cancers. Other teams are using AI to identify drugs that limit MYC’s ability to fix damaged DNA in tumors, kneecapping their ability to divide. Meanwhile, biotechnology companies are deploying AI to map out MYC’s structure and molecular interactions in search of new ways to shut the protein down.
Daraxonrasib’s success shows that undruggable proteins aren’t untouchable. There’s a lot more work ahead to prove other similar drugs can work too. But scientists are increasingly leaning into AI during all stages of drug development to speed up the process. Maybe, one day, “undruggable” will disappear from our vocabulary altogether.
The post After Decades of Failure, ‘Undruggable’ Cancers Begin to Give Way appeared first on SingularityHub.
