Abstract
Development in Artificial Intelligence (AI) has accelerated scientific discovery. Alongside recent AI-oriented Nobel prizes, these trends establish the role of AI tools in science. This advancement raises questions about the potential influences of AI tools on scientists and science as a whole, and highlights a potential conflict between individual and collective benefits. To evaluate, we used a pretrained language model to identify AI-augmented research, with an F1-score of 0.875 in validation against expert-labeled data. Using a dataset of 41.3 million research papers across natural science and covering distinct eras of AI, here we show an accelerated adoption of AI tools among scientists and consistent professional advantages associated with AI usage, but a collective narrowing of scientific focus. Scientists who engage in AI-augmented research publish 3.02 times more papers, receive 4.84 times more citations, and become research project leaders 1.37 years earlier than those who do not. By contrast, AI adoption shrinks the collective volume of scientific topics studied by 4.63% and decreases scientist's engagement with one another by 22.00%. Thereby, AI adoption in science presents a seeming paradox -- an expansion of individual scientists' impact but a contraction in collective science's reach -- as AI-augmented work moves collectively toward areas richest in data. With reduced follow-on engagement, AI tools appear to automate established fields rather than explore new ones, highlighting a tension between personal advancement and collective scientific progress.