KI könnte Wissenschaftler weniger kreativ machen | Eine neue Studie, die 68 Millionen wissenschaftliche Arbeiten untersucht, zeigt, dass der Einsatz von KI die Karriere von Forschern vorantreibt, aber die Fragen, die sie stellen, eingrenzt.
https://gizmodo.com/ai-could-be-making-scientists-less-creative-2000538342
5 Comments
Seed Statement:
The rapid rise of AI in science presents a paradox. Analyzing 67.9 million research papers across six major fields using a validated language model (F1=0.876), researchers explore AI’s impact on science. Scientists who adopt AI tools publish 67.37% more papers, receive 3.16 times more citations, and become team leaders 4 years earlier than non-adopters. This individual success correlates with concerning on collective effects: AI-augmented research contracts the diameter of scientific topics studied, and diminishes follow on scientific engagement. Rather than catalyzing the exploration of new fields, AI accelerates work in established, data-rich domains.
As a scientist, I was always proud and elated if I found new questions to explore when I was working on a project or writing an article. That’s, to me, a sign of great research.
It’s just made future scientists work harder for the privilege of being a scientist.
AI is a tool of servitude. Learn to use that tool, like how you learn to input coding and command on normal computers. To simplify it.
AI is a ladder to reach a higher stage of curiosity. Shorten research time or avoid mundane projects, etc. Who knows, we might find FTL equations with it.
AI is just a tool—it doesn’t absolve scientists of the responsibility for the choices they make. If researchers are narrowing the scope of their questions, that’s a reflection of how they’re choosing to use AI, not an inherent flaw in the technology itself. Creativity and accountability still rest firmly in human hands.
Wait what? I find myself asking chat gpt anything and everything that pops in my head.