AI in Science: Early Insights

Bold projections that artificial intelligence will accelerate scientific discovery have raced ahead of evidence from working scientists, and the field still lacks large-scale, scientist-in-the-loop tests of these claims. Here we mount the largest such evaluation to date and map what AI cannot yet do for science. We invited authors of 121,640 recent preprints across biology, medicine, chemistry, and the social sciences to judge ideas that large language models (LLMs) generated from the context and puzzles of their own papers. 6,749 scientists returned 25,139 sets of ratings on novelty, empirical feasibility, probability of being true, and favorability of adoption. Three patterns emerge. First, non-reasoning LLMs collapse into a narrow "hivemind" of similar ideas; reasoning models roam a wider hypothesis space, yet no model class spontaneously proposes null hypotheses -- a move humans make more freely. Second, scientists reward ideas that resemble their own and prize probability over novelty, though social scientists tolerate risk more readily than life scientists. Senior social scientists are the harshest critics, and their skepticism is well-earned: LLMs falter most in pluralistic fields like the social sciences that demand context-aware interpretation and evolving theories. Third, automated evaluators on which the community currently relies -- LLM-as-a-judge, artificial metrics, and even state-of-the-art (SOTA) models -- agree only weakly with expert judgment, and retrieval augmentation and scientist persona prompting yield only marginal gains. A Qwen3-14B reward model we post-trained on human ratings captures field taste nuances, beats SOTA models by up to 27%, and closes the gap to the inter-rater consistency of independent peer reviewers. For all the hype, today's scientific AI still represents a collaborator whose imagination, outputs and judgment benefit from human grounding.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly embedded in scientific discovery, yet whether it can anticipate scientific progress remains unclear. To study this question, we introduce a temporally grounded evaluation framework for forecasting scientific progress under controlled knowledge constraints. We present CUSP (Cutoff-conditioned Unseen Scientific Progress), a multi-disciplinary and event-level benchmark that evaluates scientific forecasting in AI systems through feasibility assessment, mechanistic reasoning, generative solution design, and temporal prediction. Across 4,760 scientific events, we observe systematic and domain-dependent limitations in current frontier models. While models can identify plausible research directions from competing candidates, they fail to reliably predict whether scientific advances will be realized and systematically misestimate when they will occur. Performance is highly heterogeneous across domains, with the timing of AI progress more predictable than advances in biology, chemistry, and physics. Performance is largely insensitive to whether events occur before or after the training cutoff, suggesting these limitations cannot be explained solely by knowledge exposure in training data. Under controlled information access, additional pre-cutoff knowledge improves performance but does not close the gap to full-information settings, which becomes more pronounced for high-citation advances. Models also exhibit systematic overconfidence and strong response biases, indicating unreliable uncertainty estimation. Taken together, current AI systems fall short as predictive tools for scientific progress. Access to prior knowledge does not translate into reliable forecasting, and performance benefits more from post-event information than from forward-looking prediction.

This article argues that the most important significance of the AI revolution, especially the rise of large language models, lies not simply in automation, but in a fundamental change in how complex information and human know-how are carried, replicated, and shared. From this perspective, AI for Science is especially important because it may transform not only the efficiency of research, but also the structure of scientific collaboration, discovery, publishing, and evaluation. The article outlines a gradual path from AI as a research tool to AI as a scientific collaborator, and discusses how AI is likely to fundamentally reshape scientific publication. It also argues that continuous learning and diversity of ideas are essential if AI is to play a meaningful role in original scientific discovery.