AI techniques are making inroads into the field of drug discovery. As a result, a growing number of drugs and vaccines have been discovered using AI. However, questions remain about the success of these molecules in clinical trials. To address these questions, we conducted a first analysis of the clinical pipelines of AI-native Biotech companies. In Phase I we find AI-discovered molecules have an 80–90% success rate, substantially higher than historic industry averages. This suggests, we argue, that AI is highly capable of designing or identifying molecules with drug-like properties. In Phase II the success rate is ∼40%, albeit on a limited sample size, comparable to historic industry averages. Our findings highlight early signs of the clinical potential of AI-discovered molecules.

Two surveys of millions of stars in our galaxy have revealed mysterious spikes in infrared heat coming from dozens of them. Astronomers say this could be evidence for alien civilisations harnessing energy from their stars by using a vast construction known as a Dyson sphere – although they can’t fully rule out more mundane explanations.

First proposed in the 1960s, Dyson spheres are hypothesised structures that could surround entire stars to absorb their energy, a possible means by which advanced aliens might draw huge amounts of power. If such objects exist, they should be warm enough to give off a detectable infrared glow – a “technosignature” that could alert us to the presence of alien life.

To search for potential Dyson spheres, two teams of astronomers, one led by Matías Suazo at Uppsala University in Sweden and the other by Gaby Contardo at the International School for Advanced Studies in Italy, combined data from the European Space Agency’s Gaia satellite – which is mapping the position and motion of billions of stars in our galaxy – with infrared survey results from ground and space telescopes.

Each team analysed the same 5 million stars from the combined datasets, and both turned up signs of excess infrared heat that couldn’t be explained by known natural processes. “The most fascinating explanation could be actual Dyson spheres,” says Suazo.

His team spotted strange signals at seven red dwarfs within 900 light-years of Earth. These stars are smaller and dimmer than our sun, but appeared up to 60 times brighter in infrared than expected.

This excess would have been caused by something with a temperature of up to 400°C, consistent with what we might expect for a Dyson sphere. Up to 16 per cent of each star would have to be obscured to account for the signal, meaning it would more likely be a variant of the idea called a Dyson swarm – a collection of large satellites orbiting a star to collect energy – if the cause is truly of artificial origin. “This isn’t like a single solid shell around the star,” says team member Jason Wright at Pennsylvania State University.

Contardo’s results are broader, with 53 candidates found among larger stars, including some sun-like stars, at distances of up to 6500 light years from Earth. “Both sets of candidates are interesting,” she says, though inconclusive. “You need follow-up observations to confirm anything.”

One natural explanation that could mimic the properties of a Dyson sphere is that the stars are surrounded by hot, planet-forming debris disks, but most of the stars found by both teams appear to be too old for this. Another possibility is that each star could coincidentally be positioned in front of a distant galaxy giving off an infrared glow.

The infrared signals could also result from some unknown natural process. “It might be something that happens very rarely, like if two planets collide and produce an enormous amount of material,” says David Hogg at New York University, who worked with Contardo. “I think it’s most likely to be a natural phenomenon.”

The James Webb Space Telescope could shed further light on these stars, revealing if the infrared heat comes from natural dusty material or something else.

“Either we’ll rule them all out and say Dyson spheres are quite rare and very hard to find, or they’ll hang around as candidates and we’ll study the heck out of them,” says Wright.

Vanguard's new forecasting framework suggests AI is likely to be the catalyst for a surge in economic growth, surpassing the impact of the personal computer and the internet.

A new study provides some theoretical underpinning to warp drives, suggesting that the superfast propulsion tech may not forever elude humanity.

Sci-fi fans — especially "Star Trek" devotees — are familiar with warp drives. These hypothetical engines manipulate the fabric of space-time itself, compressing the stuff in front of a spaceship and expanding it behind. This creates a "warp bubble" that allows a craft to travel at incredible velocities — in some imaginings, many times faster than the speed of light.

In 1994, Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre published a groundbreaking paper that laid out how a real-life warp drive could work. This exciting development came with a major caveat, however: The proposed "Alcubierre drive" required negative energy, an exotic substance that may or may not exist (or, perhaps, the harnessing of dark energy, the mysterious force that seems to be causing the universe's accelerated expansion).

Alcubierre published his idea in Classical and Quantum Gravity. Now, a new paper in the same journal suggests that a warp drive may not require exotic negative energy after all.

"This study changes the conversation about warp drives," lead author Jared Fuchs, of the University of Alabama, Huntsville and the research think tank Applied Physics, said in a statement. "By demonstrating a first-of-its-kind model, we've shown that warp drives might not be relegated to science fiction."

The team's model uses "a sophisticated blend of traditional and novel gravitational techniques to create a warp bubble that can transport objects at high speeds within the bounds of known physics," according to the statement.

Understanding that model is probably beyond most of us; the paper's abstract, for example, says that the solution "involves combining a stable matter shell with a shift vector distribution that closely matches well-known warp drive solutions such as the Alcubierre metric."

The proposed engine could not achieve faster-than-light travel, though it could come close; the statement mentions "high but subluminal speeds."

This is a single modeling study, so don't get too excited. Even if other research teams confirm that the math reported in the new study checks out, we're still very far from being able to build an actual warp drive.

Fuchs and his team admit as much, stressing that their work could end up being a stepping stone on the long road to efficient interstellar flight.

"While we're not yet preparing for interstellar voyages, this research heralds a new era of possibilities," Gianni Martire, CEO of Applied Physics, said in the same statement. "We're continuing to make steady progress as humanity embarks on the Warp Age."

The team's study was published online on April 29. You can find it here, though all but the abstract is behind a paywall; a free preprint version is available via arXiv.org.

Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.

Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating above preindustrial levels, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit will be met.

Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.

Numerous experts said they had been left feeling hopeless, infuriated and scared by the failure of governments to act despite the clear scientific evidence provided.

“I think we are headed for major societal disruption within the next five years,” said Gretta Pecl, at the University of Tasmania. “[Authorities] will be overwhelmed by extreme event after extreme event, food production will be disrupted. I could not feel greater despair over the future.”

But many said the climate fight must continue, however high global temperature rose, because every fraction of a degree avoided would reduce human suffering.

Peter Cox, at the University of Exeter, UK, said: “Climate change will not suddenly become dangerous at 1.5C – it already is. And it will not be ‘game over’ if we pass 2C, which we might well do.”

The Guardian approached every contactable lead author or review editor of IPCC reports since 2018. Almost half replied, 380 of 843. The IPCC’s reports are the gold standard assessments of climate change, approved by all governments and produced by experts in physical and social sciences. The results show that many of the most knowledgeable people on the planet expect climate havoc to unfold in the coming decades.

The climate crisis is already causing profound damage to lives and livelihoods across the world, with only 1.2C (2.16F) of global heating on average over the past four years. Jesse Keenan, at Tulane University in the US, said: “This is just the beginning: buckle up.”

Nathalie Hilmi, at the Monaco Scientific Centre, who expects a rise of 3C, agreed: “We cannot stay below 1.5C.”

The experts said massive preparations to protect people from the worst of the coming climate disasters were now critical. Leticia Cotrim da Cunha, at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, said: “I am extremely worried about the costs in human lives.”

The 1.5C target was chosen to prevent the worst of the climate crisis and has been seen as an important guiding star for international negotiations. Current climate policies mean the world is on track for about 2.7C, and the Guardian survey shows few IPCC experts expect the world to deliver the huge action required to reduce that.

Younger scientists were more pessimistic, with 52% of respondents under 50 expecting a rise of at least 3C, compared with 38% of those over 50. Female scientists were also more downbeat than male scientists, with 49% thinking global temperature would rise at least 3C, compared with 38%. There was little difference between scientists from different continents.

Dipak Dasgupta, at the Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi, said: “If the world, unbelievably wealthy as it is, stands by and does little to address the plight of the poor, we will all lose eventually.”

The experts were clear on why the world is failing to tackle the climate crisis. A lack of political will was cited by almost three-quarters of the respondents, while 60% also blamed vested corporate interests, such as the fossil fuel industry.

Many also mentioned inequality and a failure of the rich world to help the poor, who suffer most from climate impacts. “I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”

About a quarter of the IPCC experts who responded thought global temperature rise would be kept to 2C or below but even they tempered their hopes.

“I am convinced that we have all the solutions needed for a 1.5C path and that we will implement them in the coming 20 years,” said Henry Neufeldt, at the UN’s Copenhagen Climate Centre. “But I fear that our actions might come too late and we cross one or several tipping points.”

Lisa Schipper, at University of Bonn in Germany, said: “My only source of hope is the fact that, as an educator, I can see the next generation being so smart and understanding the politics.”

April 29 (Reuters) - Google has been hit with a new copyright lawsuit in California federal court by a group of visual artists who claimed the Alphabet unit used their work without permission to train Imagen, its artificial-intelligence powered image generator.

Photographer Jingna Zhang and cartoonists Sarah Andersen, Hope Larson and Jessica Fink said in the proposed class action filed Friday that Google is liable for misusing "billions" of copyrighted images, including theirs, to teach Imagen how to respond to human text prompts.

The case is one of many potential landmark lawsuits brought by copyright owners against tech companies including Microsoft, OpenAI and Meta over the data used to train their generative AI systems.

"Our AI models are trained primarily on publicly available information on the internet," Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said on Monday. "American law has long supported using public information in new and beneficial ways, and we will refute these claims in court."

The artists' attorneys Joseph Saveri and Matthew Butterick said in a statement that the case was "another instance of a multi-trillion-dollar tech company choosing to train a commercial AI product on the copyrighted works of others without consent, credit, or compensation."

Zhang and Andersen are also involved in a similar ongoing lawsuit against Stability AI, Midjourney and others over the companies' alleged misuse of their work to train AI image generators. The lawsuit filed on Friday said that Google used one of the same datasets to train Imagen that Stability and Midjourney used to train their systems.

The artists asked the court for an unspecified amount of monetary damages and for an order forcing Google to destroy its copies of their work.

The case is Zhang v. Google LLC, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 5:24-cv-02531.

For the artists: Joseph Saveri of Joseph Saveri Law Firm; Laura Matson of Lockridge Grindal Nauen; and Matthew Butterick

Last year marked the 40th anniversary of the almost-apocalypse.

On Sept. 26, 1983, Russian Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov declined to report to his superiors information he suspected to be false, which detailed an inbound U.S. nuclear strike. His inaction prevented a Russian retaliatory strike and the global nuclear exchange it would have precipitated. He thus saved billions of lives.

Today, the job of Petrov’s descendants is much harder, chiefly due to rapid advancements in artificial intelligence. Imagine a scenario where Petrov receives similar alarming news, but it is backed by hyper-realistic footage of missile launches and a slew of other audio-visual and text material portraying the details of the nuclear launch from the United States.

It is hard to imagine Petrov making the same decision. This is the world we live in today.

Recent advancements in AI are profoundly changing how we produce, distribute and consume information. AI-driven disinformation has affected political polarization, election integrity, hate speech, trust in science and financial scams. As half the world heads to the ballot box in 2024 and deepfakes target everyone from President Biden to Taylor Swift, the problem of misinformation is more urgent than ever before.

False information produced and spread by AI, however, does not just threaten our economy and politics. It presents a fundamental threat to national security.

Although a nuclear confrontation based on fake intelligence may seem unlikely, the stakes during crises are high and timelines are short, creating situations where fake data could well tilt the balance toward nuclear war.

The evolution of nuclear systems has led to further ambiguity in crises and shorter timeframes for verifying intelligence. An intercontinental ballistic missile from Russia could reach the U.S. within 25 minutes. A submarine-launched ballistic missile could arrive even sooner. Many modern missiles carry ambiguous payloads, making it unclear whether they are nuclear-tipped. AI tools for verifying the authenticity of content are not sufficiently reliable, making this ambiguity difficult to resolve in a short window.

The likeliest nuclear hotspots are also the arenas involving actors with low levels of trust on both sides — be that the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party or Russia, or India and Pakistan. Even if communication is established in a narrow time frame, leaders will be forced to weigh the compelling disinformation as evidence against an opposing government’s calls to stand down.

Even if the U.S. can guard against such disinformation there is no guarantee that other nuclear-armed states would have the technical capacity to do so. A single strike from another actor could precipitate global nuclear war, even if the U.S. had done its due diligence to reject the spurious intelligence.

The national security risks extend beyond nuclear exchange.

The concern among U.S. officials about Russia’s continuing disinformation campaign about American military-biological labs in Ukraine not only stems from its potential to delegitimize the Ukrainian war effort but also something more sinister. If Ukrainians started getting sick because of a novel pathogen in Donetsk, and it began to spread across Europe, Putin’s regime could leverage the last 18 months of propaganda to assign blame to the U.S., making the attribution of biological attacks — already a difficult task in conflict zones — that much harder.

The problem of fake information is also relevant at the level of response. As COVID-19 demonstrated, the proliferation of misinformation led to a less effective public health response and many more infections and deaths. A future response could be significantly hampered by ordinary citizens’ ability to manufacture compelling false information about a pathogen’s origins and remedies, mirroring the quality and style of a scientific journal.

In cybersecurity, spearphishing — the practice of deceiving a person with specifically targeted false information or authority — likewise proliferates with the emergence of advanced generative AI systems. State-of-the-art AI systems allow more actors with less technical expertise to craft believable narratives about their positions and requests, allowing them to extract information from unwitting victims.

The same tactics deployed for financial schemes have been used against personnel occupying important positions in government. Some of these efforts were successful. With ever-improving AI systems lowering the barriers to carrying out such attacks, they may become far more effective and frequent.

Clearly, AI-powered disinformation is a fundamental risk to safety and security. A central strategy to mitigate this threat must start at the source. The most powerful systems — produced by a handful of tech companies — must be scrutinized for such disinformation risks before they are developed and deployed. Systems presenting the potential for such harm must be prevented from release until safeguards are in place to eliminate these risks.

Such a strategy is not only necessary to protect our democracy and economy. It is crucial for the protection of our national security and the safety of all Americans.