As with other fields touched, AI is merely amplifying what was already there. The aim of many scientists isn't discovery in and of itself. Discovery is a side effect of their primary drive to publish and - hopefully - become well known. And establishments only make things worse, because it's the things that are most likely to produce tangible results (the papers, or economically valuable products) that get the most funding.

▲

throw94949499 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You could also argue the opposite:

The aim of many scientists is discovery, publishing is a side chore to survive and to get funding. Automate paperwork and you get more time for discovering.

	▲	_alternator_ an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Seems to me that both perspectives are true, and the relative importance of the metric incentive vs the discovery incentive varies. But the metrics and rewards are critical to the perpetuation of the scientific discovery system; its really hard to disentangle.
	▲	skeledrew 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Well the paperwork is automatable, and things are being automated. But still there're the findings that the article points to: it's leading to far more publishing (and ladder-climbing) than novel discoveries.

▲

DrewADesign an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You’re overgeneralizing a smidgeon.

▲

skeledrew an hour ago | parent [-]

Speaking from experience and conversations.

▲

DrewADesign 20 minutes ago | parent [-]

So am I. I worked in academia for a couple of decades.

	▲	skeledrew 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		OK cool so you have a far larger sample size than I to generalize from. Can you explain then what're the root cause(s) of the findings in that article?

▲

analog31 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you know any scientists?

Disclosure: Physicist.

	▲	skeledrew an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I do, and through conversations have learned that they enjoy what they do and publish patents (they're PhD in industry), but ultimately what they seek is "fame and glory" (literal quote). I was also in academics myself up to the Master's level (research track), and personally had to deal with the politics of getting support for what I wanted to work on; that experience helped to discourage me from going on to a PhD, as I'd rather have proper leeway to work on what I really prefer and take avenues I find interesting.

▲

goldenarm 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

100% agree. You could make the same argument for Hollywood : funding & revenue was always the goal, and we've been producing slop before AI was even a thing