Generative AI (GAI) reveals an irreducible human core at the center of data science: advances in GAI should sharpen, rather than diminish, the focus on human reasoning in data science education. GAI can now execute many routine data science workflows, including cleaning, summarizing, visualizing, modeling, and drafting reports. Yet the competencies that matter most remain irreducibly human: problem formulation, measurement and design, causal identification, statistical and computational reasoning, ethics and accountability, and sensemaking. Drawing on Donoho's Greater Data Science framework, Nolan and Temple Lang's vision of computational literacy, and the McLuhan-Culkin insight that we shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us, this paper traces the emergence of data science through three converging lineages: Tukey's intellectual vision of data analysis as a science, the commercial logic of surveillance capitalism that created industrial demand for data scientists, and the academic programs that followed. Mapping GAI's impact onto Donoho's six divisions of Greater Data Science shows that computing with data (GDS3) has been substantially automated, while data gathering, preparation, and exploration (GDS1) and science about data science (GDS6) still require essential human input. The educational implication is that data science curricula should focus on this human core while teaching students how to contribute effectively within iterative prompt-output-prompt cycles using retrieval-augmented generation, and that learning outcomes and assessments should explicitly evaluate reasoning and judgment.
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools can now help people perform complex data science tasks regardless of their expertise. While these tools have great potential to help more people work with data, their end-to-end approach does not support users in evaluating alternative approaches and reformulating problems, both critical to solving open-ended tasks in high-stakes domains. In this paper, we reflect on two AI data science systems designed for the medical setting and how they function as tools for thought. We find that success in these systems was driven by constructing AI workflows around intentionally-designed intermediate artifacts, such as readable query languages, concept definitions, or input-output examples. Despite opaqueness in other parts of the AI process, these intermediates helped users reason about important analytical choices, refine their initial questions, and contribute their unique knowledge. We invite the HCI community to consider when and how intermediate artifacts should be designed to promote effective data science thinking.
Venkatesh Sivaraman, Patrick Vossler, Adam Perer +2
Weill Cancer Hub West, UC San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA · Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Product data scientists often ask LLM-based agents to help with recurring execution tasks such as cleaning data, writing SQL, choosing statistical tests, and formatting results. Reusable skill files are meant to avoid prompting from scratch by packaging guidance for a task family. Expert-written skills can encode high-quality guidance, but writing and maintaining them across many data-science task families creates a manual bottleneck. We ask whether LLM-generated skills offer a useful low-curation alternative: do they improve performance over the task prompt alone? We test this question across four lifecycle stages: data preparation, data extraction, statistical analysis, and reporting, using one generated skill per stage. We find no reliable improvement from full generated skills over No-Skill prompting. We then ask whether any part of the skill is useful by ablating different skill components. The main ablation covers 56 tasks, nine model configurations, and three providers, yielding 7,560 runs. Compared with prompting using the task alone, neither the full generated skill nor any ablated skill variant significantly improves performance; all p-values are at least 0.396, and the total spread across variants is only 1.2 pp. A supplemental token-matched control adds 1,512 runs and finds that Full skills perform similarly to task-irrelevant skill-formatted content. The results caution against using one LLM-generated skill per data-science workflow as a default single-shot prompting strategy.
Generative AI systems have entered everyday academic, professional, and personal life with remarkable speed, yet most users encounter them as mysterious artifacts rather than intelligible systems. This chapter discusses large language models within a broader historical shift in computing paradigms and argues that many of the confusions surrounding their use arise from a mismatch between how these systems are built, how they behave, and how people expect computers to behave writ large. Rather than treating generative AI as a monolithic technology, the chapter decomposes it into interacting components, spanning data, models, product features, and user inputs, each introducing distinct affordances and tensions. Particular attention is given to the statistical and data-based foundations of these systems and to the fact that their surface behavior is explicitly human-like, a combination that places them squarely within the intellectual traditions of educational and behavioral research. From this perspective, educational researchers are unusually well positioned to study, evaluate, and productively use generative AI systems, drawing on established methods for modeling latent processes, managing uncertainty, and interpreting complex human-system interactions. The goal is to equip readers with a conceptual map that supports more informed experimentation, critical interpretation, and responsible use as these systems continue to evolve.