Saturday, October 3, 2026
Source trace. Via News points to the documents behind its reporting and shows what we drew from each — so you can check any claim. How we source
News articleMIT Technology Review

OpenAI is throwing everything into building a fully automated researcher

View original at technologyreview.com
MIT Technology Review - Ai Research Title: OpenAI is throwing everything into building a fully automated researcher Date: 2026-03-20 11:57 Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/03/20/1134438/openai-is-throwing-everything-into-building-a-fully-automated-researcher/ <div></div> <p>OpenAI is refocusing its researc…
Opening lines of the source · MIT Technology Review · short snapshot — read the full document at the original

What we drew from this source

The claims Via News extracted from this document. We point to the source; we don't replace it.

  • We are getting close to a point where we'll have models capable of working indefinitely in a coherent way just like people do

    60% confidence
  • Wants to cure cancer with AI

    60% confidence
  • Even by 2028, I don't expect we'll get systems as smart as people in all ways, but you don't need to be as smart as people in all ways to be very transformative

    60% confidence
  • Can believe some people don't find AI very useful yet, depends on how people like to work and what they need to do

    60% confidence
  • OpenAI plans to build an autonomous AI research intern by September 2026

    60% confidence
  • This is a big challenge for governments to figure out

    60% confidence
  • Very powerful models should be deployed in sandboxes cut off from anything they could break or use to cause harm

    60% confidence
  • Building such a system could be harder than Pachocki makes out, if you have to chain tasks together the odds of getting several right in succession tend to go down

    60% confidence
  • Most of OpenAI's technical staffers now use Codex in their work

    60% confidence
  • US government wants to use AI on the battlefield

    60% confidence
  • OpenAI plans to debut fully automated multi-agent research system in 2028

    60% confidence
  • Simple boost in all-round capability leads to models that can work longer without help

    60% confidence
  • Success of coding agents raises question whether we can do similar things outside coding in broader areas of science

    60% confidence
  • We will get to a point where you kind of have a whole research lab in a data center

    60% confidence
  • LLMs are not like human brains, they are superficially similar because they're mostly trained on people talking but not formed by evolution to be really efficient

    60% confidence
  • OpenAI's reasoning models will continue to get better

    60% confidence
  • We could build an amazing automated mathematician relatively easily with all the tools we have

    60% confidence
  • Building the equivalent of a country of geniuses in a data center

    60% confidence
  • Solving world's hardest problems was why he started DeepMind

    60% confidence
  • Once we get to systems working mostly autonomously for a long time in a big data center, chain-of-thought monitoring will be something we're really going to depend on

    60% confidence
  • AI represents extremely concentrated power that's in some ways unprecedented, imagine a data center that can do all the work that OpenAI or Google can do

    60% confidence
  • Jobs at OpenAI are totally different than they were even a year ago, nobody really edits code all the time anymore, instead managing a group of Codex agents

    60% confidence
  • I do feel personal responsibility but this can't be resolved by OpenAI alone, we'll definitely need a lot of involvement from policymakers

    60% confidence
  • It's going to be a long time before we can really solve the AI safety problem

    60% confidence
  • Looking at these models coming up with ideas that would take most PhD weeks makes me expect we'll see much more acceleration from this technology in the near future

    60% confidence
  • Codex can run experiments in a weekend that previously would have taken a week to code

    60% confidence
  • Not at the level where I would let Codex take the reins and design the whole thing

    60% confidence
  • If AI can substantially accelerate research including AI research, that's a big change in the world with serious unanswered questions

    60% confidence
  • OpenAI is much more focused now on research that's relevant in the real world

    60% confidence
  • An automated research intern is a system that can be delegated tasks that would take a person a few days

    60% confidence

Cited in these Via News reports

What we know · the intelligence behind this page
Live from the substrate
What we're seeing
Pharma Pipeline Catalysts and M&A Heat Up as AI-Designed Drugs Enter the Clinic
Late-September 2026 brought a dense run of clinical readouts: Novo Nordisk's CagriSema data at EASD, Lilly's ADtouch results for EBGLYSS, and Merck's tulisokibart Phase 2b result. Lilly's $2.9B Merida Biosciences acquisition and the 2026-11-14 FDA PDUFA date for ivonescimab sit alongside these as the main deal and regulatory events. AI-designed drugs such as rentosertib, and speculative AI-linked trial ventures such as QAIAx, are moving from hype toward clinical validation. Broader AI-sector regulatory and legal friction (Tesla Cybercab probe, xAI Minnesota ruling, OpenAI lawsuits) shows rising scrutiny that could spill into AI-driven healthcare.
Our read on the data ›
Signals we're tracking
Satellite-Terrestrial Network Integration Acceleration
Increased investment and launches in hybrid satellite-cellular networks across telecom industry; competitive responses from other carriers; regulatory activity around satellite spectrum; expansion of emergency/rural connectivity use cases
Patterns we're watching ›
Where sources disagree
Apple Inc.
The observation date (2025-12-27) precedes Q1 2026, making it logically impossible to have actual Q1 2026 cash data at that point. Q1 2026 would not end until March 31, 2026. Additionally, the magnitude of the difference ($45.3B vs $132.42) is implausibly large even as a normal quarterly change for Apple. While different fiscal periods can show different values, the timing relationship here suggests a data integrity issue rather than legitimate period-over-period variation.
We flag conflicts openly ›
Recently verified
✓ Checked against the original source
4,985
facts traced to their source — and we flag the ones that don't hold up.
101 entities tracked4,985 facts checked against source5,329 source documents archived
Query this data → isubstrate.com