TICS 2457 No.
of Pages 3
Trends in
Cognitive Sciences
Scientific Life
Intellectual cyborgs
and the future of
science
1,2,3,4, ,@
Agustin Ibanez * ing more flexible, open-ended, original con-
Unlike classical artificial intelligence
(AI), generative AI has the potential
to transform scientists into intellec-
tual cyborgs. Leveraging embodied
cognition and extended mind theo-
ries can help us understand this sci-
entific revolution. Despite ethical
concerns, generative AI can en-
hance research efficiency and ac-
cessibility. However, this requires
unprecedented proactive regulation
and responsible development.
The dawn of intellectual cyborgs
Deep learning, genetics algorithms, rein-
forced learning, Bayesian networks, fuzzy
logics, and support vector/gradient ma-
chines are integral components of everyday
scientific pursuits. Recent AI frameworks
discussed in this journal include mapping
biological intelligence to that of machines
[1] and combining deep learning, explain-
able AI, and transfer learning to improve
mental state decoding from neuroimaging
[2]. My team has utilized these tools to pre-
dict violence, characterize brain diseases
with entirely unprocessed neuroimaging,
and understand the combination of physio-
pathological and cognitive pathways in
specific neurological conditions. Although
these advancements have been success-
ful, such applications may only represent
limited approaches compared with other
types of AI.
Generative AI could spark a groundbreak-
ing revolution in scientific practices. It fo-
cuses on creating new and original content
using combined deep learning techniques,
such as neural networks and generative
adversarial networks, creating content that social media posts and customer reviews.
resembles the input data on which the sys- Multiple scientific fields, such as physics, bi-
tem has been trained. While classical AI pri- ology, and astronomy, use this type of AI to
marily concentrates on solving specific generate hypotheses and predictions that
problems using logical rules and expert can lead to discoveries and breakthroughs.
knowledge, generative AI focuses on creat-
Although LLMs are already making an
tent (but see later and Box 1). impact, they now have the potential to rap-
idly and exponentially transform scientific
The most talked-about example of genera- practices. In an online survey [7], an
tive AI currently is ChatGPT [3], a large lan- emerging number of researchers use
guage model (LLM) used in various fields. LLMs to help with writing, producing pre-
LLMs have countless applications in crea- sentations, conducting literature reviews,
tive writing, journalism, and scientific re- creating graphics, or writing code. Non-
search. They have been used in natural native English researchers can also benefit
language processing [4] involving machine from these tools to improve the coherence
translation, text summarization, and senti- of their texts. I have used an LLM in this
ment analysis. In drug discovery, LLMs text to detect typos, find additional exam-
have been used to generate novel mole- ples, and ask for criticisms, all helpful prac-
cules and predict their properties, or new tices for improving science.
compounds with potential therapeutic
properties, and to predict the toxicity and As new versions of LLMs emerge, they may
efficacy of existing drugs [5]. In data analy- go beyond their current use in guided user
sis, these tools are currently used to analyze interfaces and become directly connected
and summarize large datasets [6], such as with other software for programming, data
Box 1. Current limitations of LLMs in scientific arenas
Although the future of LLMs may become integral to scientific exploration and research, current limitations are
substantial and include different subjects:
1. Potential lack of genuine novelty: currently, LLMs are very limited in generating genuinely original ideas
or identifying novel questions in a specific field. LLMs generate content based on pattern matching of
previous data identified in the training data. The models cannot generate insights not previously sug-
gested in their input data. They cannot infer information that is not explicitly written or understand
complex relationships beyond their training data. The content they generate does not come from a
unique perspective or personal experience, nor does it involve the kind of creative synthesis that
humans engage in when generating ideas.
2. Reliance on high-quality data: the quality of output from an LLM is directly tied to the quality of the input
data. Poor or misleading data will result in incorrect or low-quality responses. Similarly, if biases exist in
the training data, the LLM will propagate them in its outputs, which can lead to biased scientific
insights and conclusions.
3. Lack of comprehension: LLMs do not understand the content they generate. Opposed to re-
searchers, they do not explicitly use consciousness (or awareness) to modify or generate new in-
sights, theories, or interpretations in a scientific context. LLMs often struggle with understanding
and maintaining context over longer content and can lose track. This lack of contextual understanding
can lead to the generation of misleading or incorrect information.
4. Inability to handle independent verification and validation: unlike human researchers, LLMs cannot
independently verify the validity of the data or the accuracy of the information they generate. They
cannot conduct additional experiments or interrogate data as a human researcher would. However,
the recent coupling of LLMs with application programming interfaces and other tools may soon
partially allow for verification and validation.
5. Lack of intrinsic ethical restrictions: LLMs cannot understand ethical considerations or make value
judgments about the appropriateness or potential impacts of the content they generate. This raises
concerns about their use in critical areas like scientific research, where responsible conduct and
ethical considerations are paramount.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Month 2023, Vol. xx, No. xx 1