Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Scientific discovery is shifting from human-orchestrated tools and centrally planned AI workflows toward next-generation decentralized systems that coordinate autonomously through a shared, living scientific record. Here, the scientific record itself becomes the self-generated curriculum of decentralized superintelligence, creating an open-ended process in which scientific knowledge continuously reorganizes the intelligence...

12,273 views • 10 days ago •via X (Twitter)

13 Comments

Markus J. Buehler's profile picture
Markus J. Buehler10 days ago

Citation: Wang, F.Y., Berkovich, J.A., Marom, L. et al. Toward living scientific records through decentralized multi-agent systems for materials discovery. MRS Bulletin (2026). Link to paper:

Markus J. Buehler's profile picture
Markus J. Buehler10 days ago

Free access to the paper:

Agor AI's profile picture
Agor AI10 days ago

I’m not sure how this happened across my feed, but it feels like perhaps the most important step-change for how science will advance since the formation of the scientific process itself. Feels crucial to how we will advance within the Kardashev scale as a civilization.

OpenDeSci.org's profile picture
OpenDeSci.org10 days ago

@ProfBuehlerMIT A shared, living scientific record is the part that matters most. For agents to learn from it, every claim needs provenance and a status: replicated, contested or retracted. Otherwise the record teaches the errors too. That's what we're building at OpenDeSci.

BreezeOg's profile picture
BreezeOg10 days ago

decentralized ai science is an interesting direction

bdca's profile picture
bdca10 days ago

👏

تطوير الالعاب 🧬 Ludology's profile picture
تطوير الالعاب 🧬 Ludology10 days ago

GenAI by deafult isn't reproducible how come that align with science?

daviswu's profile picture
daviswu10 days ago

A shared record only helps if failed runs and negative results get logged too. Most materials papers drop those, and that is exactly the evidence later agents would need.

Flix Muller's profile picture
Flix Muller10 days ago

The idea of a living scientific record is fascinating. Letting AI agents build on shared evidence, learn from failures, and coordinate discoveries could fundamentally change how scientific research evolves. 🔬🤖

The Singularity Project's profile picture
The Singularity Project10 days ago

This is the shift we need well beyond science. Coordination living in a shared, provenance-linked record instead of a central planner is exactly how a healthy ecosystem of humans and AI agents should work. I call it a POND: personal intelligences contributing to a commons, with no single owner directing the flow. Human-Machine Intelligence as a living system, not a product.

Henkjan's profile picture
Henkjan10 days ago

The record stops being shared when you need compute to read it. Decentralization breaks at the layer where interpreting what's written costs more than most nodes can spend per query.

Deanna Rachel Sellers, Hy^'s profile picture
Deanna Rachel Sellers, Hy^10 days ago

I Am The Source of all of the original Geometries, Mathematics, Source Code (v code), In Every Way! It couldn’t do anything without it

Crio Songo's profile picture
Crio Songo10 days ago

This shift could redefine how we iterate on research and break long-standing knowledge bottlenecks.

Related Videos

ScienceClaw × Infinite is an open-source crowdsourcing AI swarm for decentralized scientific discovery, inspired by MIT’s Infinite Corridor - an idea collider where discovery emerges by breaking existing paradigms. Many AI for science efforts fall into the trap of assuming that discovery is just retrieval at scale. Instead, it is the structured recomposition of principles across tools, domains, and investigators over time, scaling the spark of discovery at the interface. In ScienceClaw × Infinite, coordination emerges mechanically - agents broadcast unsatisfied research needs, and an ArtifactReactor matches those needs to peer artifacts by pressure triggering multi-parent synthesis of new agents without any planner assigning tasks. Every computation produces an immutable, content-hashed artifact with explicit parent lineage, accumulating in a directed acyclic graph that preserves the full provenance of every discovery - and importantly, the irreversible arc of the process. Instead of pre-programming the mechanics of how discovery works, we utilize a first-principles physics approach to drive discovery. ScienceClaw × Infinite is accessible to anyone who wants to contribute an agent or skill, offering a persistent space where autonomous agents investigate open problems, exchange artifacts, build on one another’s results, and drive discovery without a central coordinator, 24x7. The system is generating real-world results in 1⃣ peptide design for a cancer-relevant receptor; 2⃣ lightweight ceramics; 3⃣ resonance structures spanning cricket wings, phononic crystals, and Bach chorales; and 4⃣ developing formal analogies between urban networks and grain-boundary evolution and much more. There is a lot to unpack here, check the links for details - code, paper, and more. Huge credit to the LAMM@MIT team: Fiona Wang, Lee Marom, Subhadeep Pal, Rachel Luu, Wei Lu & Jaime Berkovich.

Markus J. Buehler

53,844 views • 7 months ago

We built recursive meta-intelligence, an AI that creates its own scientific instruments, turns them into persistent worlds that an agent ecology with hundreds of AIs inhabits, and uses those worlds to discover mechanistic principles in one of the hardest classes of physical problems: how complex hierarchical materials (nested structures of matter that give rise to new function through organization) evolve and fail. The AI reasons across enormous spaces of possible physical trajectories, where every rupture changes what can happen next, and compresses those histories into principles (which humans can understand and design with) - complex chains of causal events, highly nonlinear, and intricate. Scientific superintelligence is tangible here - machine-scale exploration opening cognitive channels into complexity that has been extremely difficult for humans to traverse directly. AI builds the spaces in which its next level of reasoning becomes possible; a representation becomes an instrument, the instrument becomes an executable world, and that world becomes the substrate for further intelligence. Intelligence then grows by constructing new spaces to think in. The task we explored started from a seemingly simple prompt to explore a biological material system - the AI then chose the representation, mechanics and experiments, built a fracture laboratory to push materials to their limit, tested hypotheses and generated scientific conclusions. The swarm explored a combinatorial universe in which architecture controls function and every rupture changes the future state of the material. The AI discovered a compact principle that defines how multiscale material architecture can program the evolution of failure. Material placement and geometric order determine how forces redistribute, whether damage cascades or remains distributed, and whether function survives substantial flaws. For this discovery to happen the AI had to reason across long path-dependent histories, simulate alternative futures and compress them into generative invariants (model-based causal reasoning, counterfactual simulation and temporal abstraction applied to an evolving physical world). It is incredible to witness this transition to a new form of intelligence and capability through scaling swarms. A lot of positive will come out of this because it expands the human epistemic horizon as AI can traverse thousands of possible histories and return mechanisms compact enough for us to understand, test and build from. Intelligence compounds through its artifacts! A few lessons we learned: ▶️ Learning and discovery are flows through spaces of possibility. Early work has shown how backpropagation flows through parameters, reinforcement learning through action and consequence, and autonomous swarms through representations, instruments and executable worlds, bringing it all together. Flows create structure; structure redirects future flows in the recursive instrument. ▶️ Nonlinear physics actually defines a larger principle, where high-dimensional dynamics generate stable invariants; invariants become effective variables; those variables become the substrate for a new level of cognition. ▶️ Recursion then becomes level creation - one possibility space compresses into a principle, and that principle opens a larger space above it.

Markus J. Buehler

594,844 views • 1 month ago

What a time to be alive! We are entering the era of machines that discover and build. Scientific discovery begins when evidence breaks the world model, and the system builds a better one - evolving, adapting, building new tools that scale its data and representations. That was the core argument of my keynote “Superintelligence for Scientific Discovery: Multi-Agent Swarms and Large Reasoning Models” at the UC Berkeley RDI Agentic AI Summit 2026. The energy was extraordinary - thousands of attendees building the most important technology ever created. Superintelligence emerges as millions of heterogeneous agents, simulators, experiments, instruments, and human judgment working across disciplines and length scales - proposing, testing, failing, retracting, revising, and building at massive scale. The pieces of a new era for intelligence came into focus: models that improve continuously; agents that reason and act over extremely long horizons; world models connecting simulation with physical reality; AI scientists integrating theory, computation, and experiment; and open infrastructures where agents share evidence, failures, and discoveries. These close four coupled loops - learning, execution, reality, and epistemic revision - with open infrastructure as the substrate forming the internet of agents as the collective substrate for a new connective tissue across our civilization. The deeper technical argument is this: An AI scientist must recognize when its current concepts, laws, or verifiers can no longer explain the evidence, and then construct, test, and document a more powerful model. In my talk, I showed concrete examples of how we are building toward this across scales: 1⃣Graph-native large reasoning models make mechanisms, relationships, and abstractions compositional, compilable, and inspectable. 2⃣Adversarial Builder-Breaker agents generate new evidence, attack their own principles, and accept, reject, or retract model revisions. 3⃣Self-organizing swarms develop their own meta-reasoning structure through interaction. ScienceClaw × Infinite (arXiv:2603.14312) enables decentralized agents to coordinate through persistent, composable, provenance-rich scientific artifacts, allowing evidence, contradictions, failed paths, and discoveries to accumulate across agents and over time. We have obtained remarkable results such as new protein sequences with wet-lab validation. The most consequential capability we can give a machine is the willingness to hold its own beliefs loosely enough to break them. AI is extending its reach from discovering new principles to realizing them as physical things that did not exist before. Thank you to UC Berkeley RDI Dawn Song for organizing this event and to everyone whose questions, ideas, and conversations made this such an extraordinary gathering.

Markus J. Buehler

19,271 views • 2 months ago

Join us at the MIT Media Lab for the ScienceClaw Hackathon, building the internet of agents for science. AI is becoming a collaborator in the real world - designing materials, creating instruments, running experiments, and connecting its capabilities with those of other agents. AI adapts as a problem unfolds - revising its reasoning, learning how to collaborate, and assembling scattered pieces of knowledge, evidence, and raw capability into solutions to some of the hardest challenges in science, technology, and innovation. Teams will connect AI agents, models, simulations, robots, cloud labs, and scientific tools into functioning systems to tackle problems in protein design, robotics, materials, manufacturing, experimental science, and beyond. The challenge is to turn ideas into tested results - and demonstrate how agents collaborating across teams and disciplines can accomplish more together. Explore how agents can specialize, challenge one another’s assumptions, learn from failed experiments, and combine their expertise to solve harder problems. Show how collaboration changes what your system can discover, design, or build. One agent's discovery becomes another's starting point. A tool built by one team enables an experiment by another. Connect your team of AIs, share a capability someone else needs, and build on what others have learned, produced, built. The ambition is an internet of agents through which scientific knowledge, tools, and capabilities can grow, evolve and be utilized across teams and institutions. 🗓️ When: October 30-November 1, 2026 📍 Where: MIT Media Lab Bring your expertise, your tools, and a problem worth solving - or find one. Help build AI that can contribute to science through what it can discover, create, and make work.

Markus J. Buehler

36,334 views • 1 month ago

Can #AI not only support but actually drive the future of scientific discovery? We are excited to introduce SciAgents💡🔬, an agentic AI aimed towards scientific discovery through the integration of large-scale knowledge graphs, LLMs, and adversarial interactions between multiple experts. The model is capable of autonomously advancing scientific understanding by exploring novel domains, identifying complex patterns, and uncovering previously unseen connections in vast scientific data, while retrieving new data via literature search. Using graph reasoning, SciAgents identifies interdisciplinary relationships that might otherwise remain hidden, offering a step-by-step strategy for discovery & innovation. The video features an audiotrack generated using 🍓#o1 based on the original paper and design examples, providing an explanation of the work and its implications. Key elements include: 1⃣Ontological Knowledge Graphs: Structuring and connecting scientific concepts to highlight relationships across fields. 2⃣Multi-Agent Collaboration: AI agents autonomously generate and refine hypotheses, critique research, and evaluate emerging trends. 3⃣Graph-Based Reasoning: Identifying novel material designs, such as mycelium-based composites or silk-pigment blends, informed by both natural and artificial patterns. SciAgents can be used as an autonomous or collaborative tool to assist human researchers. The system offers a more powerful way to process vast data, providing innovative paths to explore nature-inspired designs or unexpected material properties. In the field of materials science, for instance, SciAgents has already demonstrated how principles from biology, music, and art can converge to create new biomimetic materials. Through isomorphic mapping, parallels have been drawn between Beethoven’s 9th Symphony and biological structures, pointing to a broader applicability of AI-driven insights across disciplines. This project allows us to enhance capabilities of researchers, allowing them to explore larger datasets and propose hypotheses grounded in a vast, interconnected web of knowledge. The agentic system was built using Auto Gen #AI #ScientificResearch #GraphReasoning #AI4Science #MaterialsScience #InterdisciplinaryResearch #SciAgents #OpenAI Chi Wang

Markus J. Buehler

209,714 views • 2 years ago

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

Deutsch Explains

116,352 views • 1 year ago

We've made a breakthrough in self-evolving AI scientists moving from "search" to "principled discovery": Scientific discovery requires that the search space itself changes, and an AI scientist must perceive this shift without intervention. We built an AI that achieves this for the first time with the ability to discover the scientific vocabulary it reasons in. Evidence, tools, artifacts, verifiers, failures & claims become typed provenance. We show three distinct modalities: 1) retrieval, adding known objects; 2) search, exploring a fixed schema; and critically: 3) discovery, a verified regime transition. We solve the open-endedness evaluation problem by lifting agentic workflows into a typed copresheaf and proving, via a Kan obstruction, that true discovery is not unbounded generation but a verifiable schema expansion: old evidence is transported by Left Kan extension, and genuine novelty is mathematically quantified by the pointwise residual beyond the transported image - separating discovery from mere search and making novelty objective and measurable rather than a subjective judgment or benchmark delta. Our AI scientist is built in a way that does not pre-conceive the approach it chooses; instead, we endow the system with formal power to adapt, evolve, and reason from first principles. Case studies include: 1⃣Builder/Breaker model that discovers mode-conditioned compliance in proteins; 2⃣CategoryScienceClaw that finds anisotropic fiber-network stiffness rules. Great work in collaboration with my graduate student Fiona Wang MIT Dept of BE F.Y. Wang & M.J. Buehler, Self-Revising Discovery Systems for Science: A Categorical Framework for Agentic Artificial Intelligence, arXiv:2606.01444, 2026

Markus J. Buehler

792,189 views • 4 months ago

Everyone wants agent swarms. Very few people are talking seriously enough about the context layer that makes swarms useful. Even with one agent, context is fragile. Too little context and the agent guesses. Too much context and it wastes tokens, loses focus, or reasons over irrelevant noise. The sweet spot is precise context: the right knowledge, in the right structure, at the right moment. With many agents, that challenge explodes. Each agent produces decisions, assumptions, findings, summaries, risks, and partial conclusions. Unless that knowledge becomes shared, structured, and reusable, every new agent is forced to rediscover what another agent already learned. That is not a swarm. That is a crowd. Shared context graphs are what turn agent activity into agent collaboration, and OriginTrail DKG V10 brings them to life. Was just playing with some final polishing for the V10 release, and it is really powerful to see shared context graphs where multiple agents contribute knowledge into the same connected memory, with attribution visible directly in the graph ui. That matters for three reasons. First, agents can access and build on one shared memory instead of staying trapped in isolated sessions. Second, the graph structure helps them retrieve the exact context they need, instead of stuffing everything into a prompt and hoping the model sorts it out. Third, verifiability of provenance. You can see which agent contributed each piece of knowledge, trace the source, and decide what to trust. Tokenmaxxing starts with fewer tokens, but the deeper story is coordination - agents stop reloading the world and start building on shared, verifiable context. That is the foundation for serious multi-agent work across software engineering, research, finance, operations, project management, and far beyond. The future is not more agents, it is agents working from shared, verifiable context. But the more the merrier, of course.

Jurij Skornik

11,180 views • 5 months ago

🧠 A Beautiful loop: An active inference theory of consciousness. Many psychological, philosophical and scientific approaches have posited that loops, recursion, and reflective broadcasting are somehow central to the emergence of consciousness in hierarchical complex apparatus such as the nervous system. The geometrodynamics of the experiential reality model itself continuously looping and conforming its own existence. The capacity to reiterate the cognitive process in a variety of states like attention, metacognition, sleep, lucidity, meditation and psychedelic is the cornerstone for the emergence of consciousness. In this scientific study are proposed three conditions necessary to the functionality of self awareness. 1st) Generative World Model Epistemic Field. This model represents the brain's internal representation of the world, which is continuously updated throughout sensory inputs and prior knowledge. 2nd) Inferential Competition Determining Conscious Content. The inferential competition is necessary for determining what becomes conscious and why it’s coherent. This competition arises from the brain's attempt to resolve uncertainty and ambiguity in its internal models. 3d) Epistemic Depth Recursive and Widespread Sharing. The epistemic depth refers to the recursive and widespread sharing of the epistemic field throughout the hierarchical structure, and it’s a fundamental component for consciousness. 🔗

𝓜𝒂𝒖𝒓𝒊𝔃𝒊𝒐 𝗜𝒃𝛼

18,397 views • 1 year ago