
Show Notes
What if we could build an AI that doesn't just answer questions, but makes fundamental scientific discoveries on its own? That's the mission of Future House, and in this episode, host Allison Duettmann sits down with its co-founder, Andrew White.
Andrew shares the incredible journey that led him from chemical engineering to the forefront of the AI for Science revolution. He gives us a look under the hood at Future House's flock of specialized AI agents, like Crow, Finch, and Owl, and reveals how they recently accomplished in just three weeks what could have taken years: identifying an existing drug as a potential new treatment for a common cause of blindness.
But the conversation doesn't stop at the successes. Andrew offers a sharp critique of the current methods for evaluating AI, explaining what’s wrong with benchmarks like "Humanity's Last Exam" and why the ultimate test is real-world discovery. He also makes a compelling case for completely reinventing the slow and inefficient scientific publishing system for an era where machines are both the producers and consumers of research.
Andrew is also fundraising for the Frontiers Society at IPAM to advance this work. If you’d like to support, you can donate here: IPAM Donation Page. On the Existential Hope Podcast hosts Allison Duettmann and Beatrice Erkers from the Foresight Institute invite scientists, founders, and philosophers for in-depth conversations on positive, high-tech futures.
Full transcript, listed resources, and more: https://www.existentialhope.com/podcasts
Follow on X. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
More from The Existential Hope Podcast
We see elections as the foundation of our democracy, but Aristotle thought they create an oligarchy. In ancient Athens, democracy worked by choosing leaders among ordinary citizens by lottery. How could we revive this idea to improve today’s democratic systems?
For 50,000 of generations, humans have passed civilization down to their children. We could be the first generation to hand its future to AIs instead. Should we? Or could the best AI be the kind that chooses to step back and leave some things to us?
Google DeepMind has a 7-hour-long roleplaying game that helps real scientists and policy makers understand how AI will transform science by 2030. And those who played it have found it more informative than any policy brief.
In 2024, Taiwan was flooded with deepfake scam ads. Instead of a crackdown, the government texted 200,000 random citizens: what should we do? People’s proposals became law within months, and by 2025 deepfake ads were down 94%.
There are AIs running labs with little human intervention right now. And they’re doing experiments that human experts would never try. Is this changing what and how science gets done?