When Scientific Cognition Is No Longer Scarce

Nathan DeBardeleben

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.10241

When Scientific Cognition Is No Longer Scarce

Nathan DeBardeleben

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

AI could change which parts of science impede progress. Consider a world in which machine systems are better, faster, and cheaper than people at most scientific work that can be done through a computer. Our question is what would limit science in that world. Literature synthesis, hypothesis generation, software development, simulation, and analysis could become abundant, while experiments, observations, well-supported conclusions, and accountable institutional au- thority remain scarce. Science would then be constrained by a different set of resources. In this paper, we call this change the scarcity inversion and consider four parts of it: selection, physical access, validation, and organizational choice. This change is arriving first in mathematics and coding/software/algorithm design, where the whole scientific loop can run inside computation. For national laboratories, the change could be striking. Their distinctive role is to turn abundant machine reasoning into trustworthy results by combining controlled experiments, protected data, expert judgment, and accountable authority. The practical question is how facilities, verification, provenance, resource allocation, and scientific governance should change when reasoning is plentiful and trustworthy evidence is scarce.

Explore related subjects

cs.CY cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Nathan DeBardeleben. 2026-10-07. When Scientific Cognition Is No Longer Scarce. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10241

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

What Personal Information Improves LLM-Based Next-Location Prediction?

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for individual next-location prediction, with personal information easily added to prompts alongside mobility history. Yet the incremental predictive value of such information remains unclear. Using linked sociodemographic records and mobility traces from 5,000 Shenzhen residents, this study separates model responsiveness from predictive value. GPT-5 is the primary model, with GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.6 used for replication. In 1,000 paired prediction instances, models rank 100 candidate destinations with and without age, gender, occupation and income while all other inputs are held fixed. Behavioural history raises top-1 accuracy from 5.6% to 18.5% as prior history increases from zero to six days. By contrast, sociodemographic attributes produce no detectable overall gain, although replacing correct attributes with those of another person reduces accuracy by 5.4 percentage points. Candidate construction also matters, removing distance raises accuracy by 7.7 points under proximity sampling but lowers it by 22.3 points under popularity sampling, with the reversal reproduced across all three LLMs. These findings identify behavioural history as the clearest source of incremental value and show that personal information should be evaluated under matched, explicitly specified conditions before its privacy and governance costs are justified.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Bridging MOOCs, Smart Teaching, and AI-Assisted Learning: A Unified Quantitative Model

MOOCs, Smart Teaching (ST), and AI-assisted learning support different stages of higher education, yet a unified quantitative basis for analyzing their contributions, course design, and resource allocation remains limited. This study develops a mathematical model integrating MOOC-based pre-class learning, ST-based in-class adaptation, and AI-assisted post-class personalization. Learner mastery is represented as a bounded multidimensional state, with a common exponential learning-response function describing how instructional resources reduce remaining knowledge gaps. The stages differ in their allocation rules: predefined course-content emphasis for MOOCs, feedback-driven class-level adaptation for ST, and individualized gap-based allocation for AI-assisted learning. Simulations across 100 independently generated classes demonstrate stable cumulative progression and quantify stage-wise gains, while budget analysis reveals diminishing returns from additional AI support. For a fixed learner and learning mechanism, varying course-content emphasis shows a strong association between course-learner alignment and post-MOOC mastery. An optimal AI allocation is also derived under a fixed budget: supported components reach a common residual mastery gap, while components below this threshold receive no resources. A controlled comparison yields over 14% greater learning gain than proportional allocation. These analyses make the instructional process quantitatively analyzable and provide a basis for examining course-learner fit and coordinating limited learning resources. The model offers an analytical foundation for instructional decisions, with practical application requiring empirical estimation of learner states and calibration of learning-response parameters.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Reasoning Enhances Robustness to Prompt Injection in LLM-Based Consensus

Large Language Models (LLMs) are gaining traction as a method to generate consensus statements and aggregate preferences in digital democracy experiments. Yet, participants can introduce critical vulnerabilities in LLM-based systems. Here, we examine the vulnerability and robustness of off-the-shelf consensus-generating LLMs to prompt-injection attacks, which consist of introducing strategically designed texts to amplify particular viewpoints, erase certain opinions, or divert consensus toward unrelated or irrelevant topics. Using data collected from a 2023 experiment conducted in the UK and predefining a majority-rule, we construct attack-free and adversarial variants of prompts containing public policy questions and opinion texts, classify opinion and consensus valences with a fine-tuned BERT model, and estimate LLM--human majority agreement rates. Overall, we find that default LLMs exhibit widespread vulnerability, especially when: (i) disagreement and agreement are finely balanced, (ii) under rational, instruction-like rhetorical strategies, and (iii) for attacks that shift consensus toward positions aligned with GB-unionist conservative manifestos relative to pro-independence left manifestos. A robustness pipeline combining GPT-OSS-SafeGuard injection detection, structured opinion representations, and GSPO-based reinforcement learning substantially reduces directional failures, outperforming state-of-the-art alternatives. While more effective detectors may enable more sophisticated attacks, these findings advance our understanding of both the vulnerabilities and the potential defenses of consensus-generating LLMs in digital democracy applications.

cs.CY↗