Functional prediction

Area: definition. Apply the shared measurement protocol.

Estimated progress toward AI-managed biology

30% complete — judgment-based estimate as of November 7, 2026. Confidence: low. The scale starts at 0% before ChatGPT's public release in 2022 and ends at 100% when AI manages the field's continuing advancement without human participation. This rates the outcome's contribution to that transition, not the percentage of tasks solved, a measured fraction of the field, or time remaining.

The shared scoring rubric uses five equally weighted dimensions: execution, breadth, agenda-setting, validation, and sustained autonomous improvement. Points for this outcome are 10 + 10 + 5 + 5 + 0 = 30/100, in that order; each dimension has a maximum of 20. These component judgments make the estimate inspectable, but are not independently measured scores.

Reason for the estimate: Variant-effect benchmarks demonstrate useful prediction across modalities, but prospective experimental calibration and autonomous improvement of the scientific process remain unestablished. The dated baseline below supplies the findings and source links used for this assessment. Unmeasured components receive no demonstrated-progress credit; missing evidence does not prove a missing capability.

What would move the score: Register predictions before new assays; report effect-size errors, calibration and failures separately by endpoint and experimental batch. Higher autonomy scores additionally require AI to select worthwhile work, validate results and improve the process over repeated cycles without human research management, repair or adjudication. Lower the score if replication fails, quality regresses or previously hidden human assistance is found. Preserve this dated estimate when adding future assessments.

Measurement and acceptance rule

Prospective prediction error and calibration for measured binding, enzyme activity, or cellular response. Use new experiments rather than only retrospective databases.

Evidence requirements

Freeze predictions before experiments and preserve all designed candidates, including failed ones. Use controls, biological replicates, independent assays, and a second laboratory. Record sequence and family overlap with known data. Do not count a favorable predicted structure as experimental confirmation of activity or mechanism.

Related milestones

See the area's proposed milestones. Proposed targets are distinct from the dated evidence below.

Baseline as of November 7 2026

Status: Strong retrospective benchmark; prospective calibration incomplete. Sources accessed November 7, 2026. This is a documentary baseline, not an independent replication or an assertion of the worldwide best result. An unknown measurement is not zero.

Dated findings

January 28, 2026: AlphaGenome matches or exceeds external models in 25 of 26 variant-effect evaluations. AlphaGenome, Nature.

Interpretation and tracking value

This is a count of benchmark comparisons, not 96% prediction accuracy or prospective experimental validation. It does not yield a common error or calibration baseline for binding, enzymes and cells.

Next comparable measurement

Register predictions before new assays; report effect-size errors, calibration and failures separately by endpoint and experimental batch. Preserve this dated observation; append future results with their model/system version, denominator, budget and evidence level rather than overwriting it.