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.
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.
Publish and Perish: How AI-Accelerated Writing Without...
Artificial intelligence tools are accelerating manuscript production far faster than peer review capacity can expand. Applying the theory of constraints from manufacturing science, we formalize...
Will AI spark a scientific renaissance — or a diffuse monoculture?
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 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
AI Use in The Scholarly Kitchen - The Scholarly Kitchen
Some thoughts on the reader response the Scholarly Kitchen has seen regarding AI use by authors, a recent Nature News article on the efficacy of AI detection tools, and why it's important to keep experimenting to figure out what's ethically acceptable.
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.
#predictingthefuture #newfutureofwork | Jaime Teevan
🌱 Prediction: Knowledge will outgrow publication. We’re already seeing academic publication start to buckle under AI, sometimes absurdly. I still publish research more or less the way Darwin did. I run a study, write it up, a few other scientists check it over, and the result gets filed away as a document with my name on the front. Faster than Darwin, with better figures, but the same basic shape. I predict that shape won’t last another decade. Academic authors are starting to slip hidden instructions into papers to flatter the AI that might review them. Reviewers are spending time checking whether citations exist or were hallucinated. Researchers asking AI to tell them about a paper instead of reading it directly. These are signs that the creation of new knowledge is outgrowing the articles that used to contain it. An academic paper serves many purposes at once. It makes an argument legible. It lets strangers check one's reasoning. It assigns credit and responsibility. It records who knew what and when. A paper was the only container we had for these different jobs, so it carried all of them together. With AI, they can be separated. My guess is that means the unit of publication will get smaller. Much of my research has focused on microproductivity, developing the idea that large accomplishments can be built from many small contributions. Publication will start to become a form of microproductivity. Instead of holding onto a result until it can be wrapped in a narrative large enough to justify a paper, researchers will publish it the moment it’s solid. Each finding, method, or negative result will be citable and carry its own provenance, so credit and reasoning travel with it. Reviewing will shrink to match, so claims get checked as they’re made instead of in one verdict at the end. But more than changing publication, the deeper change will be to how research itself is done. You may have heard the term “compound engineering,” where every bug fixed, evaluation written, workflow documented, or lesson learned becomes part of the system’s memory. I predict we’re about to see “compound science,” where every experiment, evaluation, insight, artifact, and learned capability becomes a reusable asset for future discovery. Findings will become evidence. Methods will become building blocks. Failed approaches will become constraints. For centuries, science has relied on humans to navigate an ever-growing body of knowledge. Soon that body of knowledge will help navigate itself. Scientists will spend less time searching for hypotheses and more time deciding which opportunities to pursue. AI systems will propose explanations, design experiments, run analyses, and explore many possibilities in parallel. Every discovery will become a part of the machinery that produces the next one. Papers ten years from now will look less like my current papers than my current papers look like Darwin’s. If they exist at all. #PredictingTheFuture #NewFutureOfWork
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
Why Hasn’t AI Made Work Easier? - Cal Newport
I’ve been studying the intersection of digital technology and office work for quite some time. (I find it hard to believe that my book, Deep ... Read more
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…
Is the scientific paper still a fraud?
How we write scientific papers does not reflect how we do science. Their formal structure infers a pre-ordained linear process rather than reflecting the messy creativity of research. This matters in the AI age because it masks the human in the process.
AI is Creating Peak Software, Media is the Best Analogy
Let's learn more about the world's most important manufactured product. Meaningful insight, timely analysis, and an occasional investment idea.
"I was forced to use AI until the day I was laid off." Copywriters reveal how AI has decimated their industry
Copywriters were one of the first to have their jobs targeted by AI firms. These are their stories, three years into the AI era.
70 years of AI hype
Quoting from Olivia Guest et al. (2025) "Against the Uncritical Adoption of AI Technologies in Academia."
