Artificial intelligence’s ability to enrich science will depend not only on model capability, but also on whether researchers, reviewers and funders reward originality over speed.
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.
Where does the rigor go? Research software and the future of trustworthy science.
Generative AI now makes it dramatically easier to produce something that looks like research: analysis code, figures, literature reviews, even whole pap…
AI has supercharged scientists—but may have shrunk science
Analysis of 41 million papers finds that although AI expands individual impact, it narrows collective scientific exploration
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.
Charting AI’s Role in Scientific Discovery — Renaissance Philanthropy – A brighter future for all through science, technology, and innovation
Renaissance Philanthropy, with support from Google.org , is conducting a landscape study of AI integration in scientific research — and we want your perspective.
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.
Will AI ruin the social sciences — or revolutionize them?
The technology can whip up spurious findings and pollute survey responses, but it could also make research more rigorous.
AI in Science: Boosting Productivity and Innovation | Arthur Turrell posted on the topic | LinkedIn
Today at Google & Google DeepMind, we published work led by Mihai Codreanu on AI in Science, drawing on 15 million Gemini interactions, 2,600 specialised AI models & a 600-scientist survey. What did we find about how AI is changing science? Read on... First, why does this matter? If AI is a tech boost we get a one-off economic growth boost. But if AI is an "innovation in the method of innovation", we get long run higher expected future growth rates! Compound interest makes those scenarios very different for future prosperity. Where might we see innovation in the method of innovation first? Well, science of course—the engine of innovation and one of the main drivers behind the huge increase in prosperity over the last 200 years. So what do we find? 1) In our data, scientists are about 2.7x overrepresented in AI use compared to what you'd expect from employment share. Scientists are using AI a lot! 2) Science convos are longer (tokens), more multimodal, and involve more domain expertise 3) Computer science has highest use 4) specialised models and LLMs are complements: LLMs do code, stats, literature, drafting, teaching, admin while specialised models predict, generate, classify — eg protein structures, weather. 5) within LLMs, analysis & modelling + communicating research findings are top 2 tasks But are we getting *improvements*? 6) 74% of scientists surveyed report net time savings; (6% report losses). Average saving of ~7 hours/week. This is mostly going back into more research. 47% report an increase in outputs of 10% or more. There's another effect too though—as some things (hypothesis generation, modelling) become 'cheap', science gets bottlenecked by other tasks... 7) 89% of those who save time spend more than a tenth of it checking AI outputs & 41% report a growing backlog of untested hypotheses Looking a bit beyond, we expect time spent on bottleneck tasks to grow as a %, more papers that recombine ideas from across disciplines, & publication volume increases for fields that don't need wet lab work. Unfortunately, not all of this volume may be high quality ("sci-slop") So what's our early take on AI as an innovation in the method of innovation? There's significant potential to increase scientific productivity, & 7 hours/week (big!) is *already* being saved. But it's early days & bottlenecks (inc. verification) limit sci-productivity take off Huge team involved in this work, as you can imagine—see the paper for more! https://lnkd.in/g55s4MtC | 38 comments on LinkedIn
Deep Research, information vs. insight, and the nature of science
What AI will accelerate in the scientific process, what it cannot do, and how we can prepare for new manners of scientific investigation.
Designing AI for Disruptive Science
Why scaling AI won’t automatically lead to paradigm shifts.
AI in scientific publishing: Slower, worse, and more expensive
There’s a saying in the management world, popularized by NASA administrator Daniel Goldin in the 1990s, that the goal of technological improvements is to make products faster, better, and cheaper. Although this strategy had some success in the aerospace industry, the zealots of artificial intelligence (AI) have been making the same argument regarding how it will transform work, claiming that so little human effort will be required that humanity will enter an era of radical abundance, free from disease, drudgery, and danger, among other benefits, leaving society with more time for creative pursuits. But history tells a different story. When machines began to increase productivity during the second industrial revolution, American engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor’s The Principles of Scientific Management encouraged corporations to use surveillance to get employees to work harder and longer, an approach that exhausted and discouraged workers and led to the transfer of knowledge and any decision-making from workers to management, while enriching the profits for only those at the top. Yet, it remains foundational to the American economic enterprise. Indeed, scientific publishing is starting to experience some Taylorism with the insertion of AI. Rigorous human checking of AI-generated research papers is creating bottlenecks as publishers strive to maintain the integrity of the scientific record. The challenge is requiring even more human effort, making the whole endeavor slower and more expensive.
AI as the Catalyst of the New Paradigm of Science? | Cadmus Journal
The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping the landscape of scientific inquiry. This article examines the challenges confronting modern science, including knowledge fragmentation, diminishing returns of current paradigms, and the disconnect between science and society. It explores how AI offers solutions enhancing collaboration and integrating knowledge—as well as considers the possible “darker side” of using AI in research. However, the advent of AI in science not only enhances scientific research but also redefines the role of human researchers and fosters a new paradigm of human understanding. By embracing these transformations, a more cohesive and responsive scientific enterprise can emerge.
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.
I expect rapid progress but not towards general superintelligence
I’ve often been surprised when I hear from top researchers in industry that they think AI will be better than them at their job in a few years, and I didn’t really know why I doubted it.
