Resolves YES if, at the time of resolution, we know both papers to have been legitimate (and both products functional) and AI to be a critical part of at least one of their developments.
The AI could be an LLM, a search tool like drug discovery programs, or even a simple generative design program. Mere simulation or analysis tools would not count.
"Critical part" means, to the best judgement of myself and the comments section, the discovery process would have taken at least three more years without the use of the tool. I will not participate in this market.
Resolves N/A if either of these two papers proves to be false or is uncertain at the time of market resolution. Resolves NO if it is conclusively shown AI was not critical to the development of either or if the market close date is reached without significant evidence.
I am not sure how you imagine this resolving to YES - the methods in the AOH1996 paper are all pretty classical methods. The closest to "AI" is some computational modelling of candidate drugs, but this has no AI (in the modern sense of the word) in it - this paper describes the method https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jm051256o . The precursor that led to AOH1966 discovery is an antibody derived from live rabbits (this is a pretty standard methods - basically you inject stuff into rabbits and then let their immune systems find an antibody that matches it) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1697829/). There's no AI. I am less knowledgeable about physics, but the LK99 compound similarly seems to come out from your standard tedious lab work...
@MartinModrak Sorry, too quick to write (and no edit button) :-( The precursor was not rabbit antibody (although that was important in the process). The more relevant paper for the precursors is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6279569/ where they do some virtual screening + docking (computational modelling, pretty standard stuff, hard to call that AI)
@MartinModrak As far as I know, both were developed conventionally; the idea here is that someone might have done something sneaky and worked backwards from a candidate developed through other means.