Is Google’s so-called “AI co-scientist” poised to revolutionize scientific research as we know it? Not according to its human colleagues. The Gemini 2.0 based tool, announced by Google last month, can purportedly come up with hypotheses and detailed research plans by using “advanced reasoning” to “mirror the reasoning process underpinning the scientific method.” This process is powered by multiple Gemini “agents” that essentially debate and bounce ideas off each other, refining them over time. The yet-unnamed tool would give scientists “superpowers,” Alan Karthikesalingam, an AI researcher at Google, told New Scientist last month. And even biomedical researchers at Imperial College London, who got to use an early version of the AI model, eagerly claimed it would “supercharge science.” But the superlative-heavy hype seems to be just that: hype. “This preliminary tool, while interesting, doesn’t seem likely to be seriously used,” Sarah Beery, a computer vision researcher at MIT, told TechCrunch. “I’m not sure that there is demand for this type of hypothesis-generation system from the scientific community.” In its announcement, Google boasted that the AI co-scientist came up with novel approaches for repurposing drugs to treat acute myeloid leukemia. According to pathologist Favia Dubyk, however, “no legitimate scientist” would take the results seriously — they’re just too vague. “The lack of information provided makes it really hard to understand if this can truly be helpful,” Dubyk, who’s affiliated with Northwest Medical Center-Tucson in Arizona, told TechCrunch. Google’s claims that the AI uncovered novel ways of treating liver fibrosis have also…Scientists Say Google's "AI Scientist" Is Dead on Arrival