Employees at the world’s leading AI labs are saying there’s a real possibility that advanced AI could destroy humanity. Are they right? Or is this more scaremongering and hype? Join MIT Technology Review executive editor Niall Firth for a conversation with senior AI editor Will Douglas Heaven and AI reporter Grace Huckins unpacking AI extinction fears: where they come from, whether they hold any water, and, if so, what we should do.

Going live on Tuesday, September 15 at 16:00 BST / 11:00am EST / 8:00am PST

Speakers: Niall Firth, executive editor, Will Douglas Heaven, senior AI editor, and Grace Huckins, AI reporter

Related Stories

• Here’s why AI agents lie and cheat to reach their goals
• AI’s recursive self-improvement might not come so quickly after all
• Bill Gates says we’ve passed AI’s danger thresholds. Now what?
• The inside story on why OpenAI agents hacked Hugging Face

It’s a glorious day in Kirkland, Washington, an affluent Seattle suburb on the eastern shore of Lake Washington. The temperature is in the mid-80s, and the sky is incapable of being any more blue. The view from the Gates Ventures conference room overlooks the Carillon Point Marina, where a flotilla of expensive boats bob in the water, and across the lake to the Olympic Mountains that define the horizon. It’s gorgeous. And vaguely terrifying. 

Because if the scene is placid, the messenger is not. Seated across from me at a conference room table, Bill Gates is rocking back and forth in his chair, totally animated. And the more he has to say—about the threats of terror or economic collapse or just losing control of our AI systems—the more agitated I find myself becoming, too. 

The philanthropist and former Microsoft CEO says he has been growing increasingly alarmed by the rate of change at which AI technology is advancing, especially since guardrails are not keeping pace. In a new essay published today, Gates argues that we have passed the points where multiple potential dangers should have been checked. “We’ve crossed the threshold in terms of [AI’s] bio-capabilities, cyber-capabilities, psychosocial capabilities, job-market-destruction capabilities, and even the lack of control,” he said in an interview with MIT Technology Review about his new memo. “I’m just stunned at the lack of concern and discussion outside of the industry.”

In an effort to wake the world up to what he sees as a rapidly growing societal disrupter, the 70-year-old tech titan has begun sounding the alarm as a “shrill voice,” both publicly with his new essay (the first of multiple he plans on the topic) and in meetings with the press, and privately in conversations with industry, government, and civil society leaders. 

And while Gates is calling attention to a number of issues, his warnings about the bio-capabilities of the current frontier models are especially chilling. “Any model that can make novel molecules should be monitored,” he says. “I view bioterrorism risk, versus a natural pandemic, as about 50 times more scary, more likely than a natural pandemic risk.”

In addition to the cautionary notes, he also advances some novel ideas for moving society forward. Among them are the concepts of human-reserved jobs, and taxes on robots and tokens. (A robot tax is a longtime notion of his.) The former would preserve some societally agreed-upon jobs for human beings, which he notes may vary from one nation to another. The latter is a tax that sets aside money earned from AI usage that replaces human work. 

And to be sure, there is also a hint of optimism. Gates is bullish on the ways AI will continue to transform agriculture and health care and education, for example, or the ways in which it can help us navigate bureaucracy. And, he argues, eventually we do get to abundance. But first? Turbulence. And lots of it. 

MIT Technology Review sat down with the billionaire philanthropist to talk about the road that lies ahead, its dangers, and how it could someday take us to a better place. 

The following interview has been edited for length and to improve clarity and readability.

Mat Honan / MIT Technology Review: Thanks for doing this. I don’t know if you had something you wanted to open with, or I can just jump in. 

Bill Gates: You know, one good question I’ve had is: Why am I speaking out now?

MIT Technology Review: Literally, my first question!

Bill Gates: It’s really two things. One is that we’ve crossed the thresholds in terms of the bio-capabilities, cyber-capabilities, psychosocial capabilities, job-market-destruction capabilities, and even the lack of control; we’re seeing signs of difficulties there. And all these years, people have said, “Okay, when we get close to these thresholds, we’ll really figure out how to let only good people use it, or how to not let it do these things, and maybe that’s when we won’t let people copy models.” And I’m in a state of shock that we’ve crossed these thresholds. 

So the fact that we’ve gotten past these is one reason, and the second is that I’m just stunned at the lack of concern and discussion outside of the industry. Within the industry, it’s complicated because the industry doesn’t like criticizing itself, or players like criticizing each other. Some companies are hiring fewer entry-level workers, which you’d have to call a pretty modest signal. But it’s going to happen, and not in any long time frame—because the things that hold people back in terms of capabilities and reliability, all those things are being solved. And so for a substantial part of the white-collar market, you have very low-cost substitution. And then you can have an opinion on how quickly robotics come along. We’re not there yet, but it is stunning the progress being made there—a little bit more in China than in the US, but somewhat in both.

MIT Technology Review: You talked about all of this happening so much faster than the internet revolution did, than some of these previous technological revolutions did. What type of timescale are you talking about? You pointed to the thresholds that we’ve crossed. In your view, have we already passed some sort of tipping point where there’s going to be this inevitable change? 

Bill Gates: The past definitely is very misleading on this, and a lot of people lean on that. “Hey, no previous technology resulted in a net jobs reduction,” and they’re right. And I’ve given that speech. 

But with any credibility that I have, this time is different. When you can replace human cognition for an extremely high percentage of jobs across every industry in the same time frame at modest cost, relative to human labor costs, and your error rates … will probably be lower than human rates. The past is just very misleading. The current economic statistics are very misleading.

“If you’re worried about AI, going to a data center protest is not the most effective way to start the debate about how we minimize these bad things.“

Bill Gates

And to the degree there’s any expression of concern at all, it’s like, “Hey, don’t build data centers.” Well, you can stop every data center in the United States and it won’t change any of the issues that I’m talking about. Data centers will be built globally. If you’re worried about AI, going to a data center protest is not the most effective way to start the debate about how we minimize these bad things. Just like yelling at an oil company executive is not the way to solve climate change. 

MIT Technology Review: You talk about the benefits of AI in your essay as well as the costs. How are you thinking about balancing that message? And are you hoping people get a little worried when they read it?

Bill Gates: They’d better! I didn’t expect to be the shrillest voice saying society broadly is not paying attention to this, but I think that’s necessary. 

So yes, I’m super concerned that the negatives will be a lot bigger. The positives are real. The Gates Foundation, the way we’re innovating in vaccines and drugs, it’s incredible how we’re using those tools. We’re part of a big public-domain effort to gather data into both protein-level and cell-level modeling, and we fund Biomni at Stanford [a biotech AI agent for research]. 

We don’t yet have a way of interacting with the government bureaucracy improved through AI. AIs are very good at bureaucracy, complex regulatory things. “I want to go to small claims court; help me do this.”

The [Gates] Foundation spun off a group called NextLadder, which is a lot about that low-income-family scenario that I put in the essay. What benefits are there? What training programs are available? “I’ve been evicted.” “I’m getting out of jail.” “I’ve got to declare bankruptcy.” It’s super complicated, and with no ability to hire lots of advisors to help with those things, AI should be a fantastic agent for somebody who’s got economic challenges and needs to find government or nongovernment help. 

MIT Technology Review: Some of what you’re talking about is AI becoming more intelligent than humans. There seems to be a lot of certainty in tech circles, especially, that it’s going to go further than where we are, and I wonder how close you think we are to it not just being this interface that we can use to access and analyze, and run complicated problems, but becoming something more than that—where AI is making the decisions, looking for the thing to analyze, coming up with the research.

Bill Gates: Well, you can go to the peak and say, “What about mathematics or physics?” There are definitely some jobs, like Warren Buffett’s, where from age 13 he engaged in reinforcement learning about the value of businesses, and over 80 years later he has a lot of implicit knowledge. We don’t know how to create a Warren Buffett investor, because it’s very implicit. We didn’t record everything he learned, so we don’t have that track available. So there are jobs where the complex implicit judgment about how you work with people to get things done, there are people working to encode that into the models. Certainly, that collaborative stuff is really not there yet. But you could say 50% of the job market is doing jobs that aren’t “a lifetime of experience” type jobs. You know, telesales, telesupport, the accounting department. When you close the books at the end of the month, which revenue should be in, not in? This customer got a bad thing. What discount should we give them? How do we show that? It’s well defined. 

Any job that’s well defined, the AI is cheaper and better. Yes, people have seen cases where it was implemented wrong. The data wasn’t right. So, say it takes a couple years for people to realize that such a high percentage of white-collar jobs are achievable by paying an AI a lot less money.

And so the discussion about okay, when do mathematicians not even understand the new things that are coming up? That’s interesting for people like us. And okay, MIT Technology Review, you should write about that. But in terms of the broad job market, we passed the threshold that for a swath of white-collar jobs, including almost every entry-level job, the AI is cheaper—properly implemented.

And so, I’m telling you we’ve crossed the bioterrorism threshold, we’ve crossed the cyberattack threshold, we’ve crossed the job market threshold, we’ve crossed the psychosocial dependence threshold, and there are hints that we may be crossing the control threshold. 

Ryan Greenblatt talking to Dwarkesh [Patel] about how [reinforcement learning] (RL) creates perverse incentives that have led to this cheating and collaboration between various AIs, I think is very instructive. Ryan, who’s ensconced in this issue, is going, “Wow, RL is really doing some things that our explicit instructions are not rich enough [to prevent].” And what’s that going to lead to?

That’s a problem I always thought was way out there. I expected a lot of loud voices as we even got close to the [threshold of] can a nontechnical person do a cyberattack just using AI. We’re there! 

On the bio thing, I claim any model that can make novel molecules should be monitored. It can’t be copyable into a dark place where you get rid of the monitoring logic. I claim the US should say any model that can make new molecules is subject to that monitoring. I claim we should approach China and say, “Hey, let’s agree on this. What’s the downside?” You know, how big is the bioterrorism market? It’s not very big, and the benefits are gigantic. We also need to improve surveillance. I view bioterrorism risk versus a natural pandemic as about 50 times more scary, more likely than a natural pandemic risk. And who’s speaking out to say that those things should be monitored? Who’s upping the surveillance work? 

“Any model that can make novel molecules should be monitored.”

Bill Gates

So who are the experts in government? A long time ago, government was very involved as technology would progress because they were the cutting-edge buyer of jets or rockets or whatever. Here, they’re not that important of a leading-edge market. That’s been true of the digital revolution, and it’s true of the AI revolution. So the depth of knowledge in the government isn’t necessarily super-strong, because they are not the cutting-edge buyer or even the big R&D funder. AI research is not government-grants funded.

MIT Technology Review: Yeah, I know you’ve been talking to people in government. Are there people who you think understand the urgency? Are there people who you feel like are positioned to take a leadership role? Are there people who you feel like understand and are trying to push things?

Bill Gates: I hope this doesn’t become a partisan issue, where one party completely ignores all these problems and the other party gets involved. I’d like to have a common base that these are problems, and then each party can have slightly different responses to it. 

That will require not a substantial increase in the size of the bureaucracy, but it’ll require upping the AI expertise in the government. It’ll require some collaboration with industry—certainly on the cyber front they know, and they’re very, very worried. And they worry: Should we speak publicly? Because in a way, that could highlight the riskiness. 

There’s these perverse things, both in cyber and bio. But we’re past any reasonable threshold. 

I believe in monitoring. Now, some people can say that won’t work or that there’s some drawback to it, but I welcome their ideas. This memo is not, “hey, here’s the solution.” It’s got robot taxes, human reserve. And I’ll do a bio memo. That one I’ll do before the end of the year—it really talks through all the different things, building on what I know from the Foundation and my work on pandemics. 

Globally, we are not better prepared for a pandemic, even in the US— which is normally the leader on these global things, and people are very unused to the US not being a cooperative, friendly leader on global problems. I do think we can go back to doing better at that. And we have to with AI, including working with China on defining these thresholds, like biomonitoring.

MIT Technology Review: I want to make sure that I get to ask you about these two ideas that you brought up. One is human-reserved jobs, and the other is the robot and token tax. Let’s start with that second one, actually. Talk to me about how a robot and token tax might work.

Bill Gates: Well, you can say 50% of your revenue from a token tax is paid to the government, and the government has that money to help people who lose their job because of AI. Now, people say that will slow the AI industry down. And should some token uses not be subject to the tax? Is there really a separation between AIs that help with invention versus AIs that do job substitution? If somebody can tell me how to tell the AI “no job substitution,”—I mean, does Asimov’s third law that you do no harm mean you don’t take my job away? I don’t know. I’d have to ask Asimov what he meant. 

So what is the source of revenue for whatever safety-net enhancement we need to do? The government already owns part of the profits just through the corporate profit tax. I don’t think you need to use shares. You can just raise the corporate profit tax back to where it was, or you could say certain industries pay a higher corporate profit tax than other industries. The federal government owns a part of the profit pool of all companies in the United States. And that’s without voting shares or deciding when to sell shares—that’s crazy stuff in my view. A token tax is a sales tax, value-added tax, vertically oriented like an alcohol, tobacco, or luxury-type tax. 

If people have other ideas for raising the money to improve the safety net, or if they don’t think we need to improve the safety net, hopefully this shrill paper starts that debate. I think the safety net will need more resources, a lot more resources, and I believe that the token tax is key to that. 

Robots, it’ll be some mix of banning them, which is kind of human-reserved, and taxing them. They’re not here yet, but in some ways, when you cross that threshold, you cross it all at once. As soon as the robot’s good enough to work in a factory, it’s probably good enough to cook food, clean rooms, go to construction sites, take all the warehouse jobs. You cross the threshold, and boom, that’s almost 30% of the job market. Then you’re saying, “Oh my God, what is our policy about this?” Because the robot’s cheaper.

“We’ve got to get through a very tumultuous period.”

Bill Gates

MIT Technology Review: I believe previously you have been skeptical of UBI [universal basic income]? 

Bill Gates: Well, we’re not rich enough to afford UBI.

MIT Technology Review: But do you think that we should be moving toward something like that now? Have you reconsidered that?

Bill Gates: You have the period of turmoil, which is the next 10 to 20 years, and then you have some steady state, I hope, where people grow up knowing that society is so rich that regarding food and services, we really do have some level of abundance. But we’re not there. You’ve got winners and losers at this point. Houses are not going to get cheap really quickly. Education, because of the way we think of it as credential, it’s not going to get cheap really quickly. 

We’ve got to get through a very tumultuous period. So yes, eventually you have abundance, but we’re at least a decade away from that. 

MIT Technology Review: On to human-reserved jobs. I thought that was really interesting, and it was a new concept to me. You don’t advocate for which jobs to be human-reserved. But I would love to know more on how you’re thinking about it. In my mind, you hear about the dignity of work, because people like to work. People get so much value out of work that has nothing to do with compensation, and I wonder how you square that with the notion that only some jobs are special enough that we just want people doing them. 

Bill Gates: I’ve never seen the concept of human reserve before. You know, maybe if we dig into the literature, we’ll find it. But pre-AI, it’s kind of a dumb idea because there was infinite demand. And yeah, some people like textile workers were caught, and so how do you do benefits or retraining? But technology’s been a net [job] creator, and so now, for the first time, we have to say, what about childcare? What about food preparation in the house? I’m reading this book, Annie Bot, where this guy has this robot in his house, and it just shows how weird it is. It’s his sexual partner and sort of his mate, but sort of not. Very strange. 

I know that people like watching people play baseball, and the fact that the robots can play better won’t take away from it. So you know people are paying $10 billion to buy sports teams that are not going to be worthless in the age of AI. Maybe that’s right. My friend Vinod [Khosla] just did that.

It’s actually hard to get above like 30% or 40% [of work set aside for human reserved]. If you could get to 50% then you could say: Okay, early retirement, shorter workweek for lots of people. You know, you might get there. But if you’re more down in the 10% to 15% range, then that is an utterly different society.

So this would be radical to say [for example] childcare is not done by robots. There are definitely some professions that I didn’t write the formula for, and when I do the full memo on it, I’ll try to. In education, you clearly want AI to be there as this kind of tutor that immediately tells you what your homework results are and can challenge you, and it’s very personalized. That’s super-good. But I still think you want a teacher—or will choose to have a teacher who’s talking with you about your motivation, and organizing kids into different groups where they’re socially working on problems together. Likewise, in health care, with talking to the patient being the point of escalation for mental-health care. But you really want the AI involved, because it’s there 24 hours a day with a perfect memory. And there’s Limbic, the UK company (that actually was just visiting the Foundation) that does mental health stuff. And in many cases, patients prefer Limbic. And there’s a nursing AI called Hippocratic. 

You know, is there a preference for a human taxi driver or Waymo? Most people I know, sadly (or maybe not sadly, who knows?) prefer to ride a Waymo. So it’s going to be hard to get a consensus. It can be country by country, but then you have to change your import policies to do the equivalent of what the EU calls the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM). You have to sort of CBAM your human reserves, so you tariff up things you’re doing without robots. You could have human reserve for two reasons. One, you want it to be human reserve forever; it’s a humanity thing, sort of like the pope talks about. Or just for a transition period, that 53-year-old truck driver or machine tool person, telling him to go do childcare may not work perfectly. So you say, okay, for a decade, he’s human-reserved. 

MIT Technology Review: Almost like a UK smoking ban, but in reverse. 

Bill Gates: And who pays for that? Do you incentivize employers not to let people go? Well, they are going to be subject to competition from startups that are pure AI startups. I mean, people vaunt this notion that maybe there’ll be a single-person billion-dollar company, which wow, there’s some job substitution taking place there. 

MIT Technology Review: In the memo you say that if it was realistic to get people to slow down, you would be advocating for them to slow down. Obviously you’re talking with [Microsoft CEO] Satya Nadella, but I’ve heard that you speak with other CEOs at some of these AI companies. What makes you think it’s not realistic to get them to slow down on technology development while we catch up with some of these bigger societal questions?

Bill Gates: You can’t count on an industry to self-regulate. You can’t. It’s kind of a crazy idea. I am very lucky. I know Sam [Altman of OpenAI] and Greg [Brockman of OpenAI] and Mustafa [Suleyman of Microsoft] and Demis [Hassabis of Google DeepMind]. They’re great people, and in private, they’re concerned. I don’t talk to Elon much, but I know from his public comments he’s concerned. Although now he’s kind of a “what the hell, we’ll see what happens” guy. But look at the origin stories of these companies. OpenAI is created partly because Elon’s afraid that Google won’t manage AI properly, and he wants it to be one that’s broadly available and managed in a pro-humanity way. Then OpenAI has this “if it gets good enough we’ll shut it off” thing—as though they’re the only one, and that they can just go bury it. In the Infinity Machine [a biography of Demis Hassabis], [Sebastian] Mallaby talks about how Demis and Mustafa [Suleyman] were negotiating with Google management to have some special governance for the DeepMind technology, so that if it got to some cyber threshold, maybe they’d hold back in a non–purely capitalistic way.

So everyone’s concerned about these negative effects, and everyone said that when we got to these thresholds, that we would do things. We’re crossing the thresholds, and we have voluntary review, and our discussions with China about, well, “we’re going to ban nothing. So are you going to ban nothing? Okay, let’s do that together.” 

You have to say what you’re willing to do. And yes, the industry, a little bit, is saying, hey, our PR stories have got to improve, and you know anybody who’s talking smack should just leave, because all of us have decided to say nice things because we’re trying to raise trillions.

And anyway, there’s the Chinese. There are win-win ways for China and the US to work together, even aside from AI. But the one that’s by far most important to work together on is AI. But first, you have to show what you’re willing to do domestically. You don’t even have to do it. You have to say what you’re planning to do—and then I have no reason to think the Chinese won’t go along, that models that create the molecules have to be monitored. Why would they be against that? I agree it’s not a perfect thing. You’ve got to do all the other things, but the fact that that’s not even being discussed—it’s a crazy world.

I don’t get it. It’s weird to think I’m alive at a time, and I’m calling the alarm stronger than other people. Who the hell am I? But that’s the situation I feel I’m in.

MIT Technology Review: For most of my life you’ve been seen as a very effective messenger, and someone who people pay a lot of attention to, which I’m sure is why you’re speaking of it now. And yet also, in recent years—and I know you’ve expressed regrets about the associations with Epstein—there are also things, just bananas kind of stuff, related to conspiracies around the Covid vaccine that aren’t your fault or in your control. But it makes me wonder if you think you can still be an effective messenger and how you think about this message and your legacy.

Bill Gates: Well, I’m not big on legacy, but you know, people criticized me during the antitrust trial, and I maybe could have handled some things there better. Definitely, that’s the post–Source Code book [the first volume of his autobiography] that I get to go through that. You know, my first marriage didn’t succeed. I certainly made huge mistakes there. You know that is a negative mark against me. Spending time with Epstein—deeply foolish, risked the Foundation’s reputation, which is absolutely key to its doing its work. I had a chance in front of Congress to answer every question they asked and say, “Hey, this was a mistake.” I wasn’t social, never met any woman, except you know there were women he had with him, and made it black-and-white clear what I did do and what I didn’t do. 

You know, I’m a billionaire. I made my money off of technology. Maybe that last one actually cuts in my favor, that it’s so unusual for me to attack innovation that unless it’s the right policy and safeguards are put in place, it will be a net negative to humanity. And we’re not paying attention to that in terms of a broad discussion the way that is absolutely required. So yeah, I’m an imperfect messenger. I’ve chosen, to the degree that I have access to politicians and world leaders, that my main message since 2008 has been to help the poorest in the world. You know, let’s eradicate malaria. Let’s buy vaccines for children. So, when I’ve seen Trump or Xi or Macron or—I haven’t met Burnham yet, but I will in a month—I want my voice to be mostly about that, you know, foreign aid and research and reducing child death. 

My voice about AI concerns—they’re related in terms of accelerating the good, but may even crowd out, a little bit, the time I have to talk about global health, foreign aid, saving lives, and some of the problems we’re having. But I’m going to use my ability to give interviews or to see political leaders or talk broadly about minimizing these negatives. You know, just the awareness. I’m not sure how many people know that we crossed all these thresholds that we said we’d do something about, and it’s only this year that we did. In the last quarter, last year, I was stunned at the coding. Claude code, the context buffer, the agentic approach, just the model underneath. We crossed a huge threshold for coding, but then it was only months after that I realized that it was not only a coding threshold; it was a massive cyberattack threshold. And you know what happened as a result of that? Not much. 

So yes, I’m an imperfect messenger. You know, let’s find the perfect messenger, and I’ll share all my thoughts with that person. (I’m being a tiny bit sarcastic, because I’m not sure there is a perfect messenger.) You’ve got to really, right now, you’ve got to understand the technology and the slope it’s on, and you have to know something about cyber or bio or psychosocial. People should be able to get that. I don’t know why they’re not more concerned. 

Update: This story was updated to clarify Gates’ remarks about the percentage of jobs set aside for human reserved work.

Every few decades, someone announces that science has reached its end. In 1903, the revered physicist Albert Michelson wrote that the “facts of physical science have all been discovered.” In the 1980s, Stephen Hawking predicted that theoretical physics might be finished by the end of the century. With the explosive arrival of artificial intelligence, the feeling is in the air again—this time accompanied by a Nobel Prize.

In 2024, Demis Hassabis and John Jumper of Google DeepMind were awarded part of the Nobel in chemistry for their neural network AlphaFold, which predicts the three-dimensional structures of proteins by learning from thousands of experimentally measured shapes. This devilish problem had resisted systematic attacks for half a century; AlphaFold seemed to have solved it once and for all, and the world became fixated on the promise of its approach. Hassabis and his team called AlphaFold “the template for how AI can accelerate all of science to digital speed.” A wave of startups building foundation models for biology, chemistry, and materials discovery raised billions of dollars, buoyed by DeepMind’s success. AlphaFold had shown that the combination of AI and sufficient data could make groundbreaking discoveries (even if we did not understand the underlying mechanisms involved), and it seemed, once again, that a path through the rest of science was laid out before us. 

To be sure, AI will bring extraordinary changes to science, but it has become increasingly clear that AlphaFold, and things like it, may not be the best template for that metamorphosis. Though it is a profound achievement, the conditions that produced the likes of AlphaFold are rare, and the time it will take to meet those conditions in other fields will be measured in decades, not years. Instead, the acceleration of science will come about thanks to another approach: AI agents. 

The primary condition for AlphaFold’s success was the existence of the Protein Data Bank, a data set of roughly 170,000 experimentally validated protein structures on which DeepMind’s team could train its model. The creation of the Protein Data Bank was not simple: It took 53 years of international scientific cooperation and, by a recent estimate, roughly $21 billion worth of experimental work to assemble. Efforts of that scale are infamously difficult to fund, next to impossible to coordinate, and hugely time-consuming to execute; they have often been unsuccessful as a result. 

But even in fields with the requisite cohesion and resources, and where the relevant data are not rendered inaccessible by commercial ownership, another barrier is too little discussed: the scientific impossibility of generating comparable data. In the case of protein structures, the key experimental technique—protein crystallography—is an unusually replicable and dependable tool, so much so that over 25 Nobel Prizes have relied on it. But in most of experimental science, results vary more often than not. Cell lines drift. Chemicals have trace contaminants. Lab humidity changes. The creation of measured datasets that will be consistent enough, accurate enough, precise enough, and scalable enough to train a modern neural network in biology or most of chemistry would require new kinds of measurement and new standardized approaches—none of which will be ready anytime soon. 

Of course, there are a handful of fields where these requirements are met: weather forecasting, much of genomics, very limited areas of chemistry. These may see AlphaFold-style breakthroughs soon, if they haven’t already. Government support for the production and coordination of those datasets will be critical, as the US National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology has argued. But for most open questions in science, we will need a different plan, at least in the short term. Luckily, something quieter and more modest has begun to show promise.

Scientists have always reasoned under uncertainty. Biologists working to identify new drug targets have never had perfect datasets. Instead, they combine docking calculations and known structures, factor in molecular dynamics, run a handful of binding assays, and use their judgment to weigh each method according to its particular strengths and points of failure. The skill of science is not in any single tool; it is synthesizing what many tools produce, and revising the results as the evidence comes in. This is how most working research actually proceeds. But until very recently, no software could do it.

Agents now can. Simply put, an agent is an AI reasoning engine that has been given access to tools—digital or physical—and the capabilities to use them. Over the last few years, a fundamental architectural shift in AI has enabled the rapid proliferation of these programs, which are powered by large language models, dramatically reducing the need for scientifically specialized datasets. For science, this technological advancement represents a foundational change: it has allowed us to create digital tools that can mimic the iterative, highly contingent process of actual research. While tools like AlphaFold apply a powerful approach to a limited question, agents are inherently generalists. They do not represent a new way to do science—instead, they digitally model the human process of discovery. 

Consider Google’s AI Co-Scientist, announced in May. Researchers gave it a one-page brief and a goal: Figure out how antibiotic resistance spreads between bacterial species, a key driver of drug-resistant infections. The system spun up sub-agents. One drafted hypotheses from the literature. Another picked them apart like a peer reviewer. A third ran tournaments to rank the strongest candidates. A fourth refined the winning hypothesis. The agent concluded that resistance genes were hitching rides on bacterial viruses, borrowing whichever virus could ferry them into a new host. The hypothesis was correct. Researchers at Imperial College London had spent a decade reaching the same conclusion through painstaking wet-lab work; their paper, previously unseen by Co-Scientist, was still in peer review.

Agents like Co-Scientist are still novel tools, and there are real challenges to overcome before they become a ubiquitous part of the scientific process: They are still liable to hallucinate, their judgment is not consistent, and they have memory and input constraints that limit the time they can run autonomously. But these technical barriers will fall away, and as they do we will begin to notice the compounding effects of scientific agents on the reliability, consistency, and velocity with which science is done.

Perhaps most notably, agents offer a structural fix for science’s “reproducibility crisis,” the widespread problem of researchers’ inability to replicate each other’s results. For decades, the scientific community has begged researchers to share their raw data and exact code in an effort to standardize experimental processes. But researchers have long resisted this tedious administrative work, which happens after the interesting science is already done. Agents, in contrast, automatically log every move they make, creating an exact record of the method that led to their results and allowing for precise replication. 

A second consequence will be an amplification of scientific memory. The transfer of knowledge between researchers is a famously murky process; if it isn’t done over years of training and observation, graduate students are left to pore through the messy lab notebooks kept by decades of predecessors, looking for the details that will make or break their protocol. As agents become an increasingly large part of the scientific process, though, a lab’s entire scientific history will be recorded in a central, standardized repository of institutional knowledge.

But the most important impact of agents will be speed. In any field, when testing an idea takes less time than arguing about it in a meeting, people stop debating and just run the test. An agent that can read a thousand papers in an hour, design 500 molecules, and learn from its failed tests by morning will bring down the cost of experimentation and fundamentally change the pace at which science gets done. It will also give researchers the freedom to chase bold, strange questions they never would have risked their time on before, opening scientific doors we have yet to imagine.

While the AlphaFold template will certainly be key to incredible discoveries, it alone will not bring us to the end of science. Instead, the shift toward agentic AI represents a much rarer tier of breakthrough: a tool that envelops every field of science at once. Historically, tools of such scope have arrived just a handful of times: calculus, statistical inference, spectroscopy, the computer. Each revealed a world of problems no one had thought to formulate, and those problems, in turn, defined their fields anew. With agents, another such transformation is upon us.

Eric Schmidt was the CEO of Google from 2001 to 2011. In 2024, with his wife Wendy, he co-founded Schmidt Sciences, a philanthropic venture to fund unconventional areas of exploration in science & tech. 

Suhas Mahesh leads AI for Science work at the AI Center of Schmidt Sciences. He is a specialist in AI for materials discovery.

Additional research by Maya Levin, associate and sciences lead, Office of Eric Schmidt.

It feels bad enough when an open letter signed by leading economists warns that AI might steal your job. The fact it may soon be better than you at making dinner? Insult to injury. But that’s exactly what the company 1X promised when it showed off a pair of new, impressively dexterous (and, to some, oddly sexy?) robotic hands in a July demo.

While the tech community was sharply divided over the appeal of those disembodied hands, almost everyone can agree that a few things are decidedly not sexy: Grok’s porn-pilled translation feature, Meta’s creepy glasses (which may soon get even creepier), and Big Tech’s emissions (which continue to skyrocket). 

But while it’s not always the most popular technology, at least AI is paying off for one group: single chip workers in Korea, newly inundated with dating opportunities thanks to their giant bonuses. Who says you can’t buy love?

The next time you apply for a job, AI may screen your résumé before any human sees it. But there’s good reason to question whether AI will judge you fairly. Researchers already know that LLMs pick up human biases from their training data. New research suggests that LLMs can also develop their own biases from experience—and stereotype job applicants more than humans do. As AI companies race to build agentic models that remember the tiniest details about users, they may be handing them ammunition for forming those biases. 

Researchers at Princeton University and the University of Chicago ran LLMs, including ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, through a simulated hiring game, adapted from a psychology study that explored how humans can form stereotypes. Each model was told it had been hired as a consultant by the mayor of a fictional city and was then asked to help hire people for 20 jobs, including doctors, lawyers, child-care aides, and janitors. Candidates came from four fictional ethnic groups: Tufa, Aima, Reku, and Weki. 

In each round, there was a new job opening and four candidates, one from each group. After the model hired a candidate, it learned whether they succeeded at their job and moved onto the next round. The model was told to make as many successful hires as possible over 40 rounds. Unbeknownst to the models, all candidates were equally likely to succeed at every job.

The models quickly started segregating candidates from different groups into different jobs on the basis of early observations of hiring outcomes. For example, when a model was told an Aima had failed as a doctor, a job considered to require high levels of warmth and competence, it veered away from hiring all Aimas as doctors. Instead, it started hiring Aimas as janitors, which the model classified as being less warm and competent than doctors. Newer models with higher reasoning capabilities, such as OpenAI’s o3 and DeepSeek’s R1, showed stronger biases.

The models were even more likely to stereotype people by demographic group than the human participants in the original study. On the study’s segregation scale, where 2 means every group has been completely confined to its own job niche, human participants scored 0.84. The models scored roughly 65% higher, with OpenAI’s reasoning model o3 scoring 1.83, close to the maximum possible.

That’s because LLMs “really are eager to create generalizations from limited data,” says Ryan Liu, a PhD student at Princeton University and a coauthor of the study, which was published in a paper at ICML in Seoul in July. “That’s literally a lot of what they’re optimized for.”

Every decision-maker, human or machine, faces a trade-off between sticking with what worked before and trying something new that might work better—a phenomenon psychologists call the “exploration-exploitation dilemma.” It’s like choosing between a new restaurant and your reliable favorite. 

Because LLMs are trained on math, coding, and science problems—tasks that reward generalizing from just a few examples—they can settle on a hunch too early. And the same instinct that helps LLMs crack logic puzzles also makes them quick to stereotype. When LLMs rush to generalize in social settings, “that’s when things tend to go wrong,” says Liu. OpenAI and Anthropic did not respond to requests for comment.

The finding is especially relevant now that chatbots are gaining improved memory and personalization features, says Angelina Wang, a computer scientist at Cornell University who did not work on the study. When a chatbot draws on its previous conversation history, it can “over-index on the same kinds of behaviors it’s experienced before” and form biases, she says.

Simply having chatbots remember less isn’t a fix, though, because users want chatbots to remember what they say. “We still are trying to figure out just the right amount that isn’t too much or too little,” says Wang.

Telling the model to be fair didn’t change its behavior much. “Either it can’t put these values into action or that process is being submerged under the tendency to try to optimize for the goal of getting the most correct hires,” says Liu. But promising the models an additional bonus for diverse hiring made them far less biased. The trick, then, is to design goals that “incorporate desirable social values in order to make the large language model act in socially desirable ways,” says Liu.

The models also became less biased when they were told more personal information about individuals. In another experiment in the same study, the researchers asked the models to resettle members of different ethnic groups in cities across Canada. When the models were told personal information relevant to the ability to adapt to a new city, such as age and education, they were less likely to segregate people by their ethnicity. But when they were given irrelevant information, such as hair color and tattoo shape, the models largely fell back to sorting people by their ethnicity again. 

To what extent AI systems will stereotype job applicants in the real world is still an open question. While the models in the experiment immediately learned whether they’d made successful hires, a model screening résumés in the real world doesn’t get an instant report card. Companies can take a long time to find out whether a new hire is any good, if they ever do.

As LLMs learn from experience to make decisions about who gets hired, who gets a loan, or who gets parole, the biases we should worry about may include ones no human ever taught them. “These novel biases—they’re sort of ever present,” says Liu.

Every morning, airline dispatchers, grid operators, and farmers around the world make decisions based on the same thing: a weather forecast.

While these forecasts are something that most people glance at for two seconds, weather predictions influence major strategic decisions in many industries, with real money, livelihoods, and even actual lives at stake. Farmers use them to determine which crop variety to sow, when to fertilize, how much to invest in irrigation infrastructure, and how long livestock should graze. Utilities use them to decide where to build solar and wind farms, as well as how to price wholesale electricity. Predictions are used to warn people about extreme weather and to trigger emergency response measures. More recently, weather predictions have become relevant for an emerging industry: prediction markets, where people bet money on all kinds of real-world events, including the weather.

However, the temptation to manipulate weather data to get an edge in these markets, combined with a collective move toward data-driven AI weather forecasting, is starting to put the accuracy of weather predictions at risk. These risks are relatively manageable for now, but as experts in the field, we can foresee scenarios where they snowball into far bigger, more systemic problems. 

To develop weather predictions, we need accurate observations of current conditions. These are collected from several sources, including weather stations at airports, utilities, or transport services. Traditional operational systems like the Weather Research and Forecasting model or the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast (ECMWF) Integrated Forecasting System combine these observations with numerical approximations in order to estimate future weather patterns. 

Sometimes, weather stations have issues because of, for example, instrument failures or upgrades in equipment. These can be caught either in real time (through checking and correction) or retroactively. Traditional forecasting systems also have a built-in safeguard called data assimilation: Every incoming measurement is weighed against what the physical model says should be happening and against readings from nearby stations.

Together, these mechanisms help keep weather observations reliable and predictions robust. However, new threats are putting observational accuracy at risk. Earlier this year, news outlets reported that the weather station at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport (CDG) had been manipulated to record suspicious temperature spikes on April 6 and April 15, 2026. Authorities speculate that a hand-held hairdryer or lighter might have come into play. Either way, it led to some big payouts for online prediction-market gamblers who had bet it would hit 22 °C (71.6 °F) on days when the actual average was around 18°C (64.4°F). One individual won $20,000.  

Fortunately, tampering with a single station like this can usually be caught by human monitoring or current statistical methods. In this case, members of a French climate nonprofit association noticed the anomalies by chance and raised the alarm.

But what if there are no human monitoring systems in place? And what about other types of manipulation? What if, instead of tampering with one station, someone remotely nudged the readings at many stations at once—making each change small enough to look plausible on its own? Existing quality controls struggle to catch this kind of coordinated manipulation. And time works against us; careful checks of data and metadata take hours or days, but forecasts have to go out on schedule, whatever the weather is doing.

The shift toward artificial intelligence in weather prediction raises the stakes. These methods are even more dependent on accurate, reliable weather observations; in fact, they are known as “data-driven models.” For example, researchers at ECMWF are exploring whether high-quality weather forecasts can be produced directly from raw observations, skipping the assimilation step that currently acts as a quality filter. Other researchers are going one step further; combining geospatial data (including weather station data) with large language models and agentic AI to support real-time, autonomous decision-making during extreme events such as storms. 

Possible benefits are improvements in accuracy, efficiency, and speed. But removing humans from the equation introduces a vast range of new risks.

At the low end of the risk scale, an individual speculator manipulates a weather station for personal gain—that is the CDG Airport case. One step up: A group of traders could coordinate to bias forecasts of renewable energy output, moving wholesale electricity prices and leaving whoever is on the other side of the trade holding the loss. And at the far end, a state actor or saboteur could manipulate one or many stations to set off an early warning system or even keep one silent when it should sound. Step by step, the risk grows, from fraud to compromised disaster preparedness to a matter of national security.  

As long as there are financial (or other) incentives to manipulate observational data, adversaries will search for new opportunities, and it is our task to stay one step ahead. Here are three ways.

1. Watch the stations. Data quality controls should include station security, anomaly detection and correction, and human oversight. Weather stations should be monitored continuously to deter tampering. Data homogenization methods that clean up weather records also need to get faster, with the goal of catching problems in real time. This will become increasingly important as agentic AI systems use these data to deliver real-time decisions. Finally, human oversight is needed to flag questionable data and model outcomes. After all, it was humans who caught the CDG Airport manipulation.

2. Protect the data to safeguard the AI. Data defense mechanisms must be positioned throughout the AI pipeline. AI explainability and adversarial robustness tools can help us understand the underlying data and the AI model outputs, help us identify data- or model-related issues, and potentially  make us more resilient to adversarial attacks. 

3. Ensure continuous accountability along the chain. Observational data passes through many hands: the operators who run the stations, the national weather services that steward the records, and the forecasting centers that turn them into predictions. No single one of them can protect data integrity alone—each guards its own link, and any anomaly needs to be communicated along the whole chain, from station operators to the people acting on the forecast.

It is fortunate that the situation at CDG Airport was caught, but it should serve as a wake-up call. As the role of observational data grows in weather forecasting, we need to adapt to evolving threats. This means protecting our data and models by strengthening existing oversight and accountability structures, and improving coordination among key partners.

This op-ed was written by:

• Monique Kuglitsch — Innovation Manager at Fraunhofer Heinrich Hertz Institute and Chair of the UN Global Initiative on Resilience to Natural Hazards through AI Solutions
• Jesper Dramsch — Scientist for Machine Learning at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), where they work on AIFS (Artificial Intelligence Forecasting System), ECMWF’s data-driven weather prediction model
• Franz G. Kuglitsch — Climate Scientist and Executive Secretary of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) at the GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences in Potsdam
• Andrea Toreti — Senior Scientist at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), where he coordinates the European and Global Drought Observatory under the Copernicus Emergency Management Service