The advent of AI agents based on large language models (LLMs) has put the idea of automating the intellectual and cognitive work of researchers on the table. A lively, sometimes even heated discussion is already going on. A frequently missing piece in this debate is the question why we, individually and as a society, actually do science. I will examine this question first, and then consider what it implies for introducing automation into science.
AI for science needs reasoning, not just data
AI agents that can model the human process of research will accelerate discoveries in science.
Artificial intelligences and human scientists exhibit...
We investigate the effectiveness of artificial intelligences (AI)-specifically large language models (LLMs)-relative to human scientists at high-level cognitive tasks in social science such as...
AI Research Agents Narrow Scientific Exploration
AI research agents now support large-scale AI-assisted scientific discovery. We examine whether AI-generated ideas broaden scientific exploration or primarily reinforce existing work. Using five agent frameworks and five large language models, we generate 219,655 ideas for different scientific fields. Across experiments, four consistent patterns emerge. First, AI-generated ideas are more concentrated than human-authored papers within the same research area. Second, they remain much closer to starting literature than later human follow-on work does. Third, AI-generated ideas align less with future human research. Last, AI-generated ideas are located in lower-impact regions of the historical scientific landscape. Overall, current AI research agents appear better suited to local elaboration than to broadening scientific exploration.
AI Scientists as Engines of Discovery: A Case for Development within Reformed Institutions
Agentic artificial intelligence (AI) systems are beginning to assist, accelerate, and partially automate scientific discovery, performing tasks that span literature synthesis, code generation, data analysis, hypothesis proposal, and model criticism. We argue that this transition is qualitative rather than incremental, and that suitably designed multi-agent systems may evolve from passive computational tools into ``AI scientists'' that can expand the hypothesis-generating and verification capacity of science. Such systems must be developed and deployed within a scientific ecosystem fit for purpose: institutions must be redesigned for verification, accountability, interpretability, and dual-use safety. We sketch how multi-agent architectures, illustrated by the prototype framework \textit{Denario}, accelerate the discovery cycle and traverse model spaces beyond human reach; examine what this implies for authorship, peer review, and the enduring role of human scientists; and close with recommendations for governing AI as an epistemic actor rather than a mere instrument.
Artificial intelligence tools expand scientists’ impact but contract science’s focus
Developments in artificial intelligence (AI) have accelerated scientific discovery1. Alongside recent AI-oriented Nobel prizes2–9, these trends establish the role of AI tools in science10. This advancement raises questions about the influence of AI tools on scientists and science as a whole, and highlights a potential conflict between individual and collective benefits11. To evaluate these questions, we used a pretrained language model to identify AI-augmented research, with an F1-score of 0.875 in validation against expert-labelled data. Using a dataset of 41.3 million research papers across the natural sciences and covering distinct eras of AI, here we show an accelerated adoption of AI tools among scientists and consistent professional advantages associated with AI usage, but a collective narrowing of scientific focus. Scientists who engage in AI-augmented research publish 3.02 times more papers, receive 4.84 times more citations and become research project leaders 1.37 years earlier than those who do not. By contrast, AI adoption shrinks the collective volume of scientific topics studied by 4.63% and decreases scientists’ engagement with one another by 22%. By consequence, adoption of AI in science presents what seems to be a paradox: an expansion of individual scientists’ impact but a contraction in collective science’s reach, as AI-augmented work moves collectively towards areas richest in data. With reduced follow-on engagement, AI tools seem to automate established fields rather than explore new ones, highlighting a tension between personal advancement and collective scientific progress.
AI scientists are changing research — institutions, funders and publishers must respond
The ability to automate the discovery process in some areas of scientific inquiry raises unanswered questions about how research should be conducted.
AI is turning research into a scientific monoculture
Generative AI deserves scientific attention. But the rush to study it is producing a feedback loop of topical and methodological convergence, flattening scientific imagination and crowding out the pluralism needed to keep research adaptive, resilient, and intellectually generative.
How AI Agents are transforming scientific discovery
AI agents are starting to reshape science, from proposing novel hypotheses to writing code. Learn what comes next for scientists and policymakers.
Science that Compounds: The Need for A New Substrate for Research in the Age of AI
This paper is a perspective from Lightcone Research, an open-source initiative building tooling for scientific research in the age of agentic AI.
From Genius Science to Scenius Science - Cosmik Labs
Why personal AI tools might not be all we need to revolutionize science
Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research
Scientists are enthusiastically imagining ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) tools might improve research. Why are AI tools so attractive and what are the risks of implementing them across the research pipeline? Here we develop a taxonomy of scientists’ visions for AI, observing that their appeal comes from promises to improve productivity and objectivity by overcoming human shortcomings. But proposed AI solutions can also exploit our cognitive limitations, making us vulnerable to illusions of understanding in which we believe we understand more about the world than we actually do. Such illusions obscure the scientific community’s ability to see the formation of scientific monocultures, in which some types of methods, questions and viewpoints come to dominate alternative approaches, making science less innovative and more vulnerable to errors. The proliferation of AI tools in science risks introducing a phase of scientific enquiry in which we produce more but understand less. By analysing the appeal of these tools, we provide a framework for advancing discussions of responsible knowledge production in the age of AI.
Human scientists trounce the best AI agents on complex tasks
State-of-the-industry report finds that, despite the limitations of artificial-intelligence systems, researchers have embraced them.
Agentic Laboratories of the Future: Towards World Models for Scientific Discovery
Scientific discovery is fundamentally a problem-solving process involving distributed intelligence. Human intuition, computational reasoning, and experimental execution are distributed across people, instruments, and software systems, limiting the speed and scale of discovery. Although automation, high-throughput experimentation, foundation models, and cloud infrastructure have accelerated individual stages of the scientific workflow, they have not unified the discovery process. We hypothesize that the next generation of laboratories will be agentic: environments in which scientists, AI systems, and robotic platforms operate as collaborative discovery partners, with humans contributing the parts of discovery that remain hardest to make explicit: asking the right questions and holding provisional mechanistic models of how a system works. The key missing layer is an agentic harnessing layer that continuously integrates hypothesis, literature-derived evidence, experimental data, uncertainty, and experimental state into a shared “laboratory world model”—a dynamic representation of the scientific system and its evolving context. By maintaining and updating this lab world model, the agentic harnessing layer enables coordinated decision-making, adaptive planning, and increasingly autonomous scientific workflows across humans and machines. A central challenge is that much of the scientific research process remains inaccessible to machines, including tacit knowledge, human observations, adaptive decision-making, and evolving experimental context. Advances in multimodal AI and immersive interfaces may help bridge this gap, allowing humans, agents, and robotic systems to collaborate seamlessly in scientific discovery rather than simply automating isolated tasks. Agentic laboratories could provide a new architecture for science, integrating human, artificial, and physical intelligence into a unified discovery system.
No. 010: AutoScientists governance, AI-agent monoculture, nonsense-term retractions - The Hallway Track
The Hallway Track No. 010 - How AI is affecting the practice of science
Verification in the Age of AI Scientists
AI Scientists now operate at a scale that outpaces human capacity for manual review. Systems such as Sakana’s AI Scientist write entire workshop papers end-to-end. Lila Sciences runs autonomous ``AI Science Factories’’ that hypothesize, experiment, and iterate without human guidance. FutureHouse’s Kosmos and Robin generate thousands of candidate hypotheses in a single run, and Google’s Co-Scientist proposes testable experiments at a rate no laboratory can fully evaluate. Each of these systems emphasizes verified results, yet that standard ranges from near-perfect formal proof in mathematics to decade-long clinical trials in medicine, with no shared framework for judging sufficiency across domains. As outputs scale beyond what humans can manually inspect, the question of which results to trust becomes as hard as generating them. The bottleneck for AI for Science is no longer hypothesis generation, it is verification.