/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

Researchers say they haven't found “strikingly novel compounds” after analyzing a subset of the 2.2M new crystals DeepMind claimed its AI tool GNoME discovered

In November, Google's AI outfit DeepMind published a press release titled “Millions of new materials discovered with deep learning.”

404 Media Jason Koebler

Context & Ripple Effects

DeepMind's earlier GNoME announcement emphasized the scale of its predicted crystal-structure set and plans to make a portion available to scientists. This review of a subset tests whether that large predicted materials catalog also translates into chemically consequential discoveries.

The distinction matters because AI materials work is judged not only by how many candidates a model produces, but by whether experimental and scientific review identifies genuinely useful novelty among them.

First-order effects

  • The researchers' subset analysis directly qualifies DeepMind's public framing: a large count of predicted crystals is not, by itself, evidence of many strikingly novel compounds.
  • Scientists evaluating GNoME-derived candidates face a more explicit validation burden, separating structurally plausible predictions from compounds that are meaningfully new.

Second-order effects

  • AI-for-materials teams and their users will be pushed to report discovery quality alongside candidate volume, including how results hold up under independent review.
  • The usable value of GNoME's planned data release depends more on screening and validation workflows than on the headline size of the catalog.

Third-order effects

  • If similar findings recur, materials-AI evaluation is likely to shift from model-output scale toward reproducible measures of novelty and downstream scientific usefulness.
  • The episode is a reminder that AI industrialization in science depends on connecting prediction systems to rigorous verification, rather than treating generated candidates as completed discoveries.

The trend: AI-driven science is moving from celebrating vast candidate-generation outputs toward proving which outputs survive independent validation and create practical research value.

Discussion

  • @datadrivenmd Jorge Caballero on threads
    I'm old enough to remember the 2022 AI hype cycle, which began when a Google engineer claimed that the company's chatbot was sentient
  • @jasonkoebler@mastodon.social Jason Koebler on mastodon
    Google announced its AI discovered “millions of new materials.”  This was v hyped.  —  A new analysis argues it actually “does not report any new materials.”  One researcher said “there are many examples of predicted materials that are clearly nonsensical”  —  https://www.404medi…
  • @abebab Abeba Birhane on x
    AI researchers/ big corp make unsubstantiated claims and are celebrated for “groundbreaking” advancement of the field scholars (often under-sourced) meticulously examine the claims and find they're inflated/misleading but these corrections merely get traction rinse & repeat
  • @mmitchell_ai @mmitchell_ai on x
    Remember kids: If you deeply care about scientific integrity, choose Peer review over PR.
  • @alexhanna Alex Hanna on x
    Another one of those times that AI people wildly over claim even a “narrow” use of the tech.
  • @genomerambler @genomerambler on x
    interesting how shitty this deepmind effort was compared to alphafold
  • @robert_palgrave Robert Palgrave on x
    Back in November, Google announced 2.2 milllion new materials. Today, a paper in Chemistry of Materials from Ram Seshadri and Tony Cheetham dismantles that claim https://pubs.acs.org/...
  • @mikarv @mikarv on x
    Google: we have used AI to discover 2.2 million new crystals, 384K are stable. Chemists, actually examining results: we have yet to find any strikingly novel compounds in the [..] listings. (most could not exist or are so trivially different chemists wouldn't consider them new)