Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly incorporated into scientific workflows. However, we have yet to fully grasp the implications of this integration. How should the advent of large language models affect the practice of science? For this opinion piece, we have invited four diverse groups of scientists to reflect on this query, sharing their perspectives and engaging in debate. Schulz et al. make the argument that working with LLMs is not fundamentally different from working with human collaborators, while Bender et al. argue that LLMs are often misused and over-hyped, and that their limitations warrant a focus on more specialized, easily interpretable tools. Marelli et al. emphasize the importance of transparent attribution and responsible use of LLMs. Finally, Botvinick and Gershman advocate that humans should retain responsibility for determining the scientific roadmap. To facilitate the discussion, the four perspectives are complemented with a response from each group. By putting these different perspectives in conversation, we aim to bring attention to important considerations within the academic community regarding the adoption of LLMs and their impact on both current and future scientific practices.

Search in an environment with an uncertain distribution of resources involves a trade-off between exploitation of past discoveries and further exploration. This extends to information foraging, where a knowledge-seeker shifts between reading in depth and studying new domains. To study this decision-making process, we examine the reading choices made by one of the most celebrated scientists of the modern era: Charles Darwin. From the full-text of books listed in his chronologically-organized reading journals, we generate topic models to quantify his local (text-to-text) and global (text-to-past) reading decisions using Kullback-Liebler Divergence, a cognitively-validated, information-theoretic measure of relative surprise. Rather than a pattern of surprise-minimization, corresponding to a pure exploitation strategy, Darwin's behavior shifts from early exploitation to later exploration, seeking unusually high levels of cognitive surprise relative to previous eras. These shifts, detected by an unsupervised Bayesian model, correlate with major intellectual epochs of his career as identified both by qualitative scholarship and Darwin's own self-commentary. Our methods allow us to compare his consumption of texts with their publication order. We find Darwin's consumption more exploratory than the culture's production, suggesting that underneath gradual societal changes are the explorations of individual synthesis and discovery. Our quantitative methods advance the study of cognitive search through a framework for testing interactions between individual and collective behavior and between short- and long-term consumption choices. This novel application of topic modeling to characterize individual reading complements widespread studies of collective scientific behavior.

Topic models remain a black box both for modelers and for end users in many respects. From the modelers' perspective, many decisions must be made which lack clear rationales and whose interactions are unclear — for example, how many topics the algorithms should find (K), which words to ignore (aka the "stop list"), and whether it is adequate to run the modeling process once or multiple times, producing different results due to the algorithms that approximate the Bayesian priors. Furthermore, the results of different parameter settings are hard to analyze, summarize, and visualize, making model comparison difficult. From the end users' perspective, it is hard to understand why the models perform as they do, and information-theoretic similarity measures do not fully align with humanistic interpretation of the topics. We present the Topic Explorer, which advances the state-of-the-art in topic model visualization for document-document and topic-document relations. It brings topic models to life in a way that fosters deep understanding of both corpus and models, allowing users to generate interpretive hypotheses and to suggest further experiments. Such tools are an essential step toward assessing whether topic modeling is a suitable technique for AI and cognitive modeling applications.