data analysis teams

Abstract: Generative AI has entered research programming, yet there is little evidence about which tasks researchers hand to it or how they decide whether its code is correct. We draw on 527 free-text responses to a 2025 survey of researchers who write code, most of them at U.S. universities. In each response, a researcher recounts a single task from their own work, the way they used an AI tool for it, and what they did to assess the result. We coded the task and the evaluation strategies reported, and related both to programming experience, research area, and confidence ratings. Use was concentrated in five tasks: data handling, visualization, debugging, mathematical/scientific computing, and statistical analysis. Evaluation was informal and individual. Over half of accounts described running the generated code, while automated tests and review by another person were rare. Use cases and evaluation strategies varied little with programming experience, but confidence did: Less experienced programmers trusted the AI more than themselves, and experienced programmers the reverse. Evaluation confidence was not associated with the strategies reported. Its strongest correlates were confidence in the tool and in oneself. Validating AI contributions to scientific code rested largely on individual judgment, outside shared infrastructure for testing or review. Interfaces could support task-appropriate evaluation rather than leave it to the user.

Abstract: As artificial intelligence's capabilities improve, it is increasingly viewed as a general scientific method. But how true are these claims? Does AI outperform all techniques, or only some, and how is this changing? To assess the claims, we assemble a corpus of 2,507 head-to-head comparisons between AI and other scientific analysis techniques across 27 scientific disciplines from papers published between 2000 and early 2025. We find a profound dichotomy. Relative to traditional statistics, AI often outperforms, but at a significantly higher computational cost. But there are also nearly a quarter of cases where AI is both more expensive and performs worse than traditional statistical techniques and this fraction has been stable for a decade. Relative to scientific computing, AI often underperforms, but at lower computational cost. This has begun to change: since 2020, AI's performance against scientific computing has notably strengthened and it now outperforms on more than half of comparisons. These patterns suggest that AI is therefore not a universal replacement for existing methods, but rather a valuable -- and improving -- part of a new AI-enabled scientific frontier.