Hyperproblems: New Ways of Doing and Communicating Science - Hyperproblems

Hyperproblems: Hyperproblems are scientific challenges whose scale, complexity, novelty and interdependence overwhelm traditional research models, requiring…

Nathan Skene on Twitter / X

I figure it’ll be a mix of something like discourse / outcome graphs + benchmarks on key tasks + “living papers” (forkable / version controlled) on key topicsCitation counts to be replaced by metrics scoring extent of disruption to discourse graphs— Nathan Skene (@n_skene) September 19, 2026

ScienceIDE: Turning World's Scientific Codebase into Agent Learnable Environments

Scientific code repositories encode decades of human knowledge in executable models, methods, and tools. Yet fragmented toolchains, implicit domain conventions, and specialized correctness criteria make this knowledge difficult to convert into reliable learning experience-a challenge we call the scientific experience bottleneck. We introduce ScienceIDE, infrastructure for turning the world's scientific code into programmable environments for scientific agents. Guided by expert-defined scientific cases and acceptance criteria, agents transform repositories into executable environments that support task generation, execution, and scientific verification. These environments provide a shared foundation for supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and evaluation. Using verified interaction trajectories, we train PhAI-IDE-72B, PhAI-IDE-9B, and PhAI-IDE-4B. The model family shows gains in held-out scientific-code repair and across selected general-purpose benchmarks in code, reasoning, and knowledge, providing evidence of positive transfer from scientific experience to broader capabilities. ScienceIDE lays the foundation for an integrated workspace for agent learning and scientific practice, making humanity's scientific software a shared substrate for developing scientific intelligence. Code: https://github.com/aitofound/ScienceIDE

Where does the rigor go? Research software and the future of trustworthy science.

Generative AI now makes it dramatically easier to produce something that looks like research: analysis code, figures, literature reviews, even whole pap…

Is the scientific paper still a fraud?

How we write scientific papers does not reflect how we do science. Their formal structure infers a pre-ordained linear process rather than reflecting the messy creativity of research. This matters in the AI age because it masks the human in the process.

Przemek Chojecki | PC on Twitter / X

The Growing Map of Open Mathematical Problems.We mapped 15,000+ conjectures from UnsolvedMath to show potential links between concepts.It also shows how under formalized the frontier is (less than 10%). pic.twitter.com/nm0PCpXVPf— Przemek Chojecki | PC (@prz_chojecki) August 28, 2026

Przemek Chojecki | PC on Twitter / X

The Growing Map of Open Mathematical Problems.We mapped 15,000+ conjectures from UnsolvedMath to show potential links between concepts.It also shows how under formalized the frontier is (less than 10%). pic.twitter.com/nm0PCpXVPf— Przemek Chojecki | PC (@prz_chojecki) August 28, 2026

OSF

The new way we’ll do science

Papers should become human-readable views over a graph of data, tools, results, and certificates.

We argue badly, and nothing accumulates. How could we do better? | Reason Commons — Issue Trees & Logical Thinking Process

Millions of people argue every day about the things that matter most — climate change, what to do about AI, how we might build a better world. Some of it is sharp, even insightful. And almost none of it accumulates.

Do we actually need to write research papers at all?

If we are going to lean on the creativity and the cross-domain thinking of human researchers, then surely that should be where the human time goes.

#predictingthefuture #newfutureofwork | Jaime Teevan

🌱 Prediction: Knowledge will outgrow publication. We’re already seeing academic publication start to buckle under AI, sometimes absurdly. I still publish research more or less the way Darwin did. I run a study, write it up, a few other scientists check it over, and the result gets filed away as a document with my name on the front. Faster than Darwin, with better figures, but the same basic shape. I predict that shape won’t last another decade. Academic authors are starting to slip hidden instructions into papers to flatter the AI that might review them. Reviewers are spending time checking whether citations exist or were hallucinated. Researchers asking AI to tell them about a paper instead of reading it directly. These are signs that the creation of new knowledge is outgrowing the articles that used to contain it. An academic paper serves many purposes at once. It makes an argument legible. It lets strangers check one's reasoning. It assigns credit and responsibility. It records who knew what and when. A paper was the only container we had for these different jobs, so it carried all of them together. With AI, they can be separated. My guess is that means the unit of publication will get smaller. Much of my research has focused on microproductivity, developing the idea that large accomplishments can be built from many small contributions. Publication will start to become a form of microproductivity. Instead of holding onto a result until it can be wrapped in a narrative large enough to justify a paper, researchers will publish it the moment it’s solid. Each finding, method, or negative result will be citable and carry its own provenance, so credit and reasoning travel with it. Reviewing will shrink to match, so claims get checked as they’re made instead of in one verdict at the end. But more than changing publication, the deeper change will be to how research itself is done. You may have heard the term “compound engineering,” where every bug fixed, evaluation written, workflow documented, or lesson learned becomes part of the system’s memory. I predict we’re about to see “compound science,” where every experiment, evaluation, insight, artifact, and learned capability becomes a reusable asset for future discovery. Findings will become evidence. Methods will become building blocks. Failed approaches will become constraints. For centuries, science has relied on humans to navigate an ever-growing body of knowledge. Soon that body of knowledge will help navigate itself. Scientists will spend less time searching for hypotheses and more time deciding which opportunities to pursue. AI systems will propose explanations, design experiments, run analyses, and explore many possibilities in parallel. Every discovery will become a part of the machinery that produces the next one. Papers ten years from now will look less like my current papers than my current papers look like Darwin’s. If they exist at all. #PredictingTheFuture #NewFutureOfWork

GainForest — Biodiversity Observations & Nature Projects

Explore field observations, biodiversity records, and nature projects from communities and organizations using GainForest.

Coordination Tech in Science: Letters, Journals, and Whatever Comes Next | shishyko!

To modernize our scientific infrastructure, we need new contextualization and coordination technologies that decouple trust from legacy branding — shifting from gatekeeping on write to algorithmic contextualization on read.

Where Should Science Go Next

Where Should Science Go Next? Prashant Garg, April 2026 Every researcher has to choose what to work on next. Science has formal procedures for judging answers, but no comparable procedure for comparing questions. Einstein said in 1918 at Max Planck's sixtieth birthday: "There is no logical path t...

Lego Brick Commons & Spontaneous Collaboration - Wesley's notes

A funner way to talk about nerdy stuff like Semble and modular science

Science as Collective Sensemaking

What is Science?

The case for a validity layer in life science research

When OpenAI recently announced that one of its models had disproved a long-standing conjecture in discrete geometry, the scientific community took notice...